Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I am not ready for that mandatory frontal lobotomy most law schools require prior to the LSAT. BEB E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise! http://proemseducators.com/index.html _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ExLngHrn@... Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:49 AM To: Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances Pretty good for a brief lesson in administrative law and in the authority of local governments. I'll write you a letter of recommendation for law school in the event that you don't play enough golf as a physician. <tongue firmly in cheek> -Wes Ogilvie Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:27:21 Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: Wes or Gene should probably answer this, but I think a municipal ordinance trumps TDSHS " rules " since the former is actually a law and the latter a rule or guideline. You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS regulations have the effective force of Federal Law. and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more strict than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may be more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts in California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Ahh, the lawyer-bashing returns. I'm offended. And I know you did intentionally. What's the name and address of your malpractice carrier? -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:27:21 Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: Wes or Gene should probably answer this, but I think a municipal ordinance trumps TDSHS " rules " since the former is actually a law and the latter a rule or guideline. You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS regulations have the effective force of Federal Law. and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more strict than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may be more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts in California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Ahh, the lawyer-bashing returns. I'm offended. And I know you did intentionally. What's the name and address of your malpractice carrier? -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:27:21 Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: Wes or Gene should probably answer this, but I think a municipal ordinance trumps TDSHS " rules " since the former is actually a law and the latter a rule or guideline. You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS regulations have the effective force of Federal Law. and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more strict than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may be more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts in California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Ahh, the lawyer-bashing returns. I'm offended. And I know you did intentionally. What's the name and address of your malpractice carrier? -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:27:21 Central Standard Time, bbledsoe@... writes: Wes or Gene should probably answer this, but I think a municipal ordinance trumps TDSHS " rules " since the former is actually a law and the latter a rule or guideline. You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS regulations have the effective force of Federal Law. and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more strict than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may be more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts in California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 So in the current state of things, we are forever-destined to abide by these so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state law is passed that specifically requires how cities will determine permitting requirements on fair principles (instead of based on local who-knows-who dealings). Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes will tell me that I am wrong ;-) ) Re: Re: City Ordinances > You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the > legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS > regulations have the > effective force of Federal Law. > > and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more > strict > than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may > be > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a > particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts > in > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... > > ck > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 So in the current state of things, we are forever-destined to abide by these so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state law is passed that specifically requires how cities will determine permitting requirements on fair principles (instead of based on local who-knows-who dealings). Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes will tell me that I am wrong ;-) ) Re: Re: City Ordinances > You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the > legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS > regulations have the > effective force of Federal Law. > > and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more > strict > than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may > be > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a > particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts > in > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... > > ck > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 So in the current state of things, we are forever-destined to abide by these so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state law is passed that specifically requires how cities will determine permitting requirements on fair principles (instead of based on local who-knows-who dealings). Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes will tell me that I am wrong ;-) ) Re: Re: City Ordinances > You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the > legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS > regulations have the > effective force of Federal Law. > > and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more > strict > than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may > be > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a > particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts > in > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... > > ck > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Best bet is to lobby the Legislature for a law preempting these local ordinances or setting standards for them. -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances So in the current state of things, we are forever-destined to abide by these so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state law is passed that specifically requires how cities will determine permitting requirements on fair principles (instead of based on local who-knows-who dealings). Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes will tell me that I am wrong ;-) ) Re: Re: City Ordinances > You may be surprised there, ...in most states, executive rules and > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus created and funded by the > legislature, have the effective force of state law, just like CMS > regulations have the > effective force of Federal Law. > > and it's a generally held guideline that local ordinances can be more > strict > than state laws (unless there is a state preemption), and state laws may > be > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level division can make a > particular law *less* strict...this is where the Pot Legalization efforts > in > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the courts... > > ck > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 , I completely understand your desire to play Devil's advocate on the list. I've done it myself. Different cities make different decisions on what should be regulated. Several cities even regulate barbers even though the state regulates them as well. As far as physicians and hospitals, municipal regulation is probably preempted by state law, although I'd have to look. As far as dictating who you must use, that's an incorrect assertion. There's a distinction between " you must use provider X " and " you must use a licensed provider. Providers A, B, and L are licensed. " We often remove the " free market process " in the name of " safety. " There are entire government agencies dedicated to this. The Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission come to mind. To use your logic, one would assert that government regulation of cattle slaughterhouses is an intrusion on the free market. Personally, I'd prefer my beef without Bovine Spongeform Encephaly (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: Who is your medical director? Who will be transporting me? What equipment do you carry? How much insurance do you have? May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing care? What is your company's regulatory history? May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a role and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. To equate reasonable regulation with Naziism is spurious at best, patently offensive, and unfortunately, belittles and cheapens your own arguments. Additionally, if you examined the history of National Socialism in Germany, you would find that much of big business supported the aims of the Nazi party as the war machine relied on German industry. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Attorney at Law/Emergency Medical Technician Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 5:31:30 PM Central Standard Time, fremsdallas@... writes: I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 , I completely understand your desire to play Devil's advocate on the list. I've done it myself. Different cities make different decisions on what should be regulated. Several cities even regulate barbers even though the state regulates them as well. As far as physicians and hospitals, municipal regulation is probably preempted by state law, although I'd have to look. As far as dictating who you must use, that's an incorrect assertion. There's a distinction between " you must use provider X " and " you must use a licensed provider. Providers A, B, and L are licensed. " We often remove the " free market process " in the name of " safety. " There are entire government agencies dedicated to this. The Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission come to mind. To use your logic, one would assert that government regulation of cattle slaughterhouses is an intrusion on the free market. Personally, I'd prefer my beef without Bovine Spongeform Encephaly (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: Who is your medical director? Who will be transporting me? What equipment do you carry? How much insurance do you have? May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing care? What is your company's regulatory history? May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a role and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. To equate reasonable regulation with Naziism is spurious at best, patently offensive, and unfortunately, belittles and cheapens your own arguments. Additionally, if you examined the history of National Socialism in Germany, you would find that much of big business supported the aims of the Nazi party as the war machine relied on German industry. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Attorney at Law/Emergency Medical Technician Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 5:31:30 PM Central Standard Time, fremsdallas@... writes: I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 , I completely understand your desire to play Devil's advocate on the list. I've done it myself. Different cities make different decisions on what should be regulated. Several cities even regulate barbers even though the state regulates them as well. As far as physicians and hospitals, municipal regulation is probably preempted by state law, although I'd have to look. As far as dictating who you must use, that's an incorrect assertion. There's a distinction between " you must use provider X " and " you must use a licensed provider. Providers A, B, and L are licensed. " We often remove the " free market process " in the name of " safety. " There are entire government agencies dedicated to this. The Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission come to mind. To use your logic, one would assert that government regulation of cattle slaughterhouses is an intrusion on the free market. Personally, I'd prefer my beef without Bovine Spongeform Encephaly (BSE), also known as Mad Cow Disease. Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: Who is your medical director? Who will be transporting me? What equipment do you carry? How much insurance do you have? May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing care? What is your company's regulatory history? May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a role and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. To equate reasonable regulation with Naziism is spurious at best, patently offensive, and unfortunately, belittles and cheapens your own arguments. Additionally, if you examined the history of National Socialism in Germany, you would find that much of big business supported the aims of the Nazi party as the war machine relied on German industry. -Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Attorney at Law/Emergency Medical Technician Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 5:31:30 PM Central Standard Time, fremsdallas@... writes: I hear what you are saying Wes. I am just playing devils advocate here--its kind of a hobby. So, just for the sake of argument, if a municipality enacts an ordinance to protect the health and well-being of the general public, why would they not require a physician to have a city permit? Perhaps a plumber? How about a pest control service or a private security agency? This could all be done in the name of " public safety. " I realize that some cities require contractors to register with the city. I guess my argument here is Orwellian. If a municipality can dictatate to the populace that only provider X can operate within their jurisdiction, what is keeping them from saying you can only use a certain doctor or hospital? That was what was happening with the utilities in Texas---until deregulation. What is next? 7-11 can only sell orange slurpees because the red dye number 4 in the cherry slurpee is a threat to the health and well being of humanity? To the bashers on this list, I am not knocking a true regulatory process such as a city permit or state license--I just can not see how a municipality can completely exclude the free market process in the name of " safety. " And yes, there are municipal organizations in Texas that do only allow one provider. I was watching a European training film once from the 1930s regarding the promulgation of ordinances to protect the public health, welfare, and safety. It was kind of difficult to follow though since it was filmed in German. The promulgation of the law was to safegaurd their country and required certain segments of the population to get tattooed with a registration number before going off to camp. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Yahoo! Groups Links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 The issue I have with these city ordinances is that someone needs to monitor the 911 provider so that the service is not hurting the 911 calls just to do a money-making transfer. And I understand that these calls pay the bills, but it's no excuse for hurting the 911 calls. Living here in Hidalgo County, there are more than 30 services in this county alone, so I am for some type of control, just not one that gives too much control or favor to either side, something fair. I think only two cities actually have ordinances that control the services. And yes alot of these services are doing one thing or the other wrong, but noone really controls or supervises them. The TDSHS rep here is inudated as she is the only one that oversees over 100 services. So the ordinances are good as long as there is some oversight. And as long as any issues are taken up with the management. Salvador Capuchino JR EMT-Paramedic --- Kim wrote: > So in the current state of things, we are > forever-destined to abide by these > so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state > law is passed that > specifically requires how cities will determine > permitting requirements on > fair principles (instead of based on local > who-knows-who dealings). > > Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. > > > > (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes > will tell me that I am > wrong ;-) ) > > > > Re: Re: City Ordinances > > > You may be surprised there, ...in most > states, executive rules and > > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus > created and funded by the > > legislature, have the effective force of state > law, just like CMS > > regulations have the > > effective force of Federal Law. > > > > and it's a generally held guideline that local > ordinances can be more > > strict > > than state laws (unless there is a state > preemption), and state laws may > > be > > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level > division can make a > > particular law *less* strict...this is where the > Pot Legalization efforts > > in > > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the > courts... > > > > ck > > > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 The issue I have with these city ordinances is that someone needs to monitor the 911 provider so that the service is not hurting the 911 calls just to do a money-making transfer. And I understand that these calls pay the bills, but it's no excuse for hurting the 911 calls. Living here in Hidalgo County, there are more than 30 services in this county alone, so I am for some type of control, just not one that gives too much control or favor to either side, something fair. I think only two cities actually have ordinances that control the services. And yes alot of these services are doing one thing or the other wrong, but noone really controls or supervises them. The TDSHS rep here is inudated as she is the only one that oversees over 100 services. So the ordinances are good as long as there is some oversight. And as long as any issues are taken up with the management. Salvador Capuchino JR EMT-Paramedic --- Kim wrote: > So in the current state of things, we are > forever-destined to abide by these > so-called " stricter " city ordinances, unless a state > law is passed that > specifically requires how cities will determine > permitting requirements on > fair principles (instead of based on local > who-knows-who dealings). > > Guess I'll be seein' pigs fly when that happens. > > > > (This is one of those times I would hope Gene or Wes > will tell me that I am > wrong ;-) ) > > > > Re: Re: City Ordinances > > > You may be surprised there, ...in most > states, executive rules and > > guidelines promoted by divisions and bureaus > created and funded by the > > legislature, have the effective force of state > law, just like CMS > > regulations have the > > effective force of Federal Law. > > > > and it's a generally held guideline that local > ordinances can be more > > strict > > than state laws (unless there is a state > preemption), and state laws may > > be > > more strict than federal laws, but no lower level > division can make a > > particular law *less* strict...this is where the > Pot Legalization efforts > > in > > California and Oregon are falling afoul of the > courts... > > > > ck > > > > S. Krin, DO FAAFP > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 My advice is to check out BarBri when you decide you want to challenge/take the Bar exam. -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:53:38 Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Pretty good for a brief lesson in administrative law and in the authority of local governments. I'll write you a letter of recommendation for law school in the event that you don't play enough golf as a physician. <tongue firmly in cheek> -Wes Ogilvie What I'm planning to check out when we move to MO is if they still allow challenges to the Bar....and if they do, I'll find me a nice friendly judge to clerk and investigate for in my 'spare time'...a couple of years of 'reading the Law' like that, and I'll bet that I can beat the Bar exam without more than a basic 'Kaplan board course' under my belt. ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 I was going to take that law school thing next weekend, but I have my CISM course and then my MPD refresher. I have to stay current in psychiatry and telecommunications. That was a joke son,,,,,,because I am the hunter (see how many of you are old enough to remember where that came from) E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Don't miss the Western States EMS Cruise! http://proemseducators.com/index.html _____ From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of ExLngHrn@... Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 2:09 PM To: Subject: Re: Re: City Ordinances My advice is to check out BarBri when you decide you want to challenge/take the Bar exam. -Wes Re: Re: City Ordinances In a message dated 30-Jan-06 11:53:38 Central Standard Time, ExLngHrn@... writes: Pretty good for a brief lesson in administrative law and in the authority of local governments. I'll write you a letter of recommendation for law school in the event that you don't play enough golf as a physician. <tongue firmly in cheek> -Wes Ogilvie What I'm planning to check out when we move to MO is if they still allow challenges to the Bar....and if they do, I'll find me a nice friendly judge to clerk and investigate for in my 'spare time'...a couple of years of 'reading the Law' like that, and I'll bet that I can beat the Bar exam without more than a basic 'Kaplan board course' under my belt. ck S. Krin, DO FAAFP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Kim -- it sounds like you've got a bad situation where you're at. It definitely appears that the system is stacked against new providers coming in. -Wes In a message dated 1/30/2006 6:33:07 PM Central Standard Time, kim@... writes: Re: Re: City Ordinances > Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full > information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your > service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: > Who is your medical director? > Who will be transporting me? > What equipment do you carry? > How much insurance do you have? > May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing > care? > What is your company's regulatory history? > May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? > > While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a > role > and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. And with this I agree to a certain extent. If I was a resident of a city, I would expect a regulatory agency to make sure that the ambulance services allowed to operate there meet all federal, state, and local safety/crew/medical requirements. And as such, the city should have the right to inspect vehicles at any time, receive service information upon request, and require that the service remains in compliance all of the time to maintain the priviledge of operating there. In my experience, franchise applications require documents supporting your medical direction, copies of all of your licenses (TDH, DEA, DPS, etc.), full staffing information, liability insurance proof, vehicle insurance, application fees, rate sheets, and much more. The paperwork is neverending, and it becomes public record. But three years of financial statements for non-exclusive " permission " to operate in the city? Not agreeing 100% with that; kinda kicks the new or small provider from ever having a chance to offer the area's patients something better than what currently exists. Prove that you have funding to operate (such as a sizable SBA loan) and significant management/EMS experience? Sure. But you won't have three years of financial statements unless you have been operating somewhere for three years, but how can you operate somewhere for three years unless a city grants you a franchise in the first place? In this rural area, franchises are required in any city of any reasonable size... the remaining services are volunteer and everything else is far and few between. Maybe things are different in more densely-populated areas of Texas. Sad part is, even if you meet and/or exceed all of the " city's requirements " during the application process, your permission to operate is still determined by a group of elected people. Not by medical professionals. Not determined by the people who must deal with the city's medical needs on a daily basis, and are the ones voicing a desire for change. That's the problem. You know I like to play the devil's advocate as well Wes. Can't make life too easy for you ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Kim -- it sounds like you've got a bad situation where you're at. It definitely appears that the system is stacked against new providers coming in. -Wes In a message dated 1/30/2006 6:33:07 PM Central Standard Time, kim@... writes: Re: Re: City Ordinances > Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full > information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your > service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: > Who is your medical director? > Who will be transporting me? > What equipment do you carry? > How much insurance do you have? > May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing > care? > What is your company's regulatory history? > May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? > > While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a > role > and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. And with this I agree to a certain extent. If I was a resident of a city, I would expect a regulatory agency to make sure that the ambulance services allowed to operate there meet all federal, state, and local safety/crew/medical requirements. And as such, the city should have the right to inspect vehicles at any time, receive service information upon request, and require that the service remains in compliance all of the time to maintain the priviledge of operating there. In my experience, franchise applications require documents supporting your medical direction, copies of all of your licenses (TDH, DEA, DPS, etc.), full staffing information, liability insurance proof, vehicle insurance, application fees, rate sheets, and much more. The paperwork is neverending, and it becomes public record. But three years of financial statements for non-exclusive " permission " to operate in the city? Not agreeing 100% with that; kinda kicks the new or small provider from ever having a chance to offer the area's patients something better than what currently exists. Prove that you have funding to operate (such as a sizable SBA loan) and significant management/EMS experience? Sure. But you won't have three years of financial statements unless you have been operating somewhere for three years, but how can you operate somewhere for three years unless a city grants you a franchise in the first place? In this rural area, franchises are required in any city of any reasonable size... the remaining services are volunteer and everything else is far and few between. Maybe things are different in more densely-populated areas of Texas. Sad part is, even if you meet and/or exceed all of the " city's requirements " during the application process, your permission to operate is still determined by a group of elected people. Not by medical professionals. Not determined by the people who must deal with the city's medical needs on a daily basis, and are the ones voicing a desire for change. That's the problem. You know I like to play the devil's advocate as well Wes. Can't make life too easy for you ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Kim -- it sounds like you've got a bad situation where you're at. It definitely appears that the system is stacked against new providers coming in. -Wes In a message dated 1/30/2006 6:33:07 PM Central Standard Time, kim@... writes: Re: Re: City Ordinances > Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full > information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your > service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: > Who is your medical director? > Who will be transporting me? > What equipment do you carry? > How much insurance do you have? > May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing > care? > What is your company's regulatory history? > May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? > > While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a > role > and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. And with this I agree to a certain extent. If I was a resident of a city, I would expect a regulatory agency to make sure that the ambulance services allowed to operate there meet all federal, state, and local safety/crew/medical requirements. And as such, the city should have the right to inspect vehicles at any time, receive service information upon request, and require that the service remains in compliance all of the time to maintain the priviledge of operating there. In my experience, franchise applications require documents supporting your medical direction, copies of all of your licenses (TDH, DEA, DPS, etc.), full staffing information, liability insurance proof, vehicle insurance, application fees, rate sheets, and much more. The paperwork is neverending, and it becomes public record. But three years of financial statements for non-exclusive " permission " to operate in the city? Not agreeing 100% with that; kinda kicks the new or small provider from ever having a chance to offer the area's patients something better than what currently exists. Prove that you have funding to operate (such as a sizable SBA loan) and significant management/EMS experience? Sure. But you won't have three years of financial statements unless you have been operating somewhere for three years, but how can you operate somewhere for three years unless a city grants you a franchise in the first place? In this rural area, franchises are required in any city of any reasonable size... the remaining services are volunteer and everything else is far and few between. Maybe things are different in more densely-populated areas of Texas. Sad part is, even if you meet and/or exceed all of the " city's requirements " during the application process, your permission to operate is still determined by a group of elected people. Not by medical professionals. Not determined by the people who must deal with the city's medical needs on a daily basis, and are the ones voicing a desire for change. That's the problem. You know I like to play the devil's advocate as well Wes. Can't make life too easy for you ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you since you didn't sign your post.) Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a " some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually, it's not a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the power to regulate EMS. EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building? I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a particular ambulance service? Best regards, Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time, asearch4reason@... writes: So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING CITIZEN calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being " monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition causes the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls. This is a VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some what dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs, there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants full control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard time knowing that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me who I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family. As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I damn well please, this is my right as an American CItizen. Stay safe everyone.... " E. Tate " wrote: The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can, can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called “ sole-provider†ordinances. The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to provide 911 coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of the past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing entity can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important services. Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be regulation. We aren’t going to change that. I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie crumbles. Tater fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a free market economy trumps a city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request originating on private property and being paid for privately?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you since you didn't sign your post.) Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a " some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually, it's not a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the power to regulate EMS. EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building? I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a particular ambulance service? Best regards, Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time, asearch4reason@... writes: So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING CITIZEN calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being " monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition causes the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls. This is a VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some what dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs, there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants full control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard time knowing that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me who I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family. As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I damn well please, this is my right as an American CItizen. Stay safe everyone.... " E. Tate " wrote: The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can, can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called “ sole-provider†ordinances. The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to provide 911 coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of the past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing entity can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important services. Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be regulation. We aren’t going to change that. I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie crumbles. Tater fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a free market economy trumps a city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request originating on private property and being paid for privately?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Hello Mr./Ms./Mrs. ASearch4Reason: (I didn't know what else to call you since you didn't sign your post.) Government regulation of private, non-emergency ambulance transports is a " some what dictator ship? " (I had a bit of a hard time following your reasoning because of the rampant spelling and grammatical issues.) Actually, it's not a somewhat dictatorship. Court cases have held that government has the power to regulate EMS. EMS is a very crucial service and we complain about regulating it. Yet, I wonder if TexasPlumbers-L would be filled with people complaining that the state licenses plumbers and that most cities additionally inspect plumbing before issuing a certificate of occupancy for a new building? I'm still a bit confused. Can you point me to a specific provision either in Constitutional or statutory law that guarantees your right to choose a particular ambulance service? Best regards, Wes Ogilvie, MPA, JD, EMT-B Austin, Texas In a message dated 1/30/2006 8:10:37 PM Central Standard Time, asearch4reason@... writes: So I guess then the telephone books should be " City Specific " and not let any and all other services place an add. This wayno PRIVATE TAX PAYING CITIZEN calls for an ambulance that is not called to a location that is being " monopolized " by a Goverment entity. I agree with that " too much compition causes the level of care to diminish " and I do believe that there are private companies that hire anyone with a " pulse and a patch " to cover their calls. This is a VERY SCARY situation. But at what piont in time does this become a some what dictator ship. If my family has used " Ambulance ABC " for the last 5 yrs, there comes a sort of bond. This is just swiped away because CITY A wants full control. If I call for an ambulance for my family for a NON-EMERGENCY transport, and I am PAYING out of MY POCKET, I really would have a hard time knowing that the city where I PAY TAXES AND ELECT officials are going to tell me who I can and cannot use to medically take care of my family. As everyone else, I too am not taking sides, as a matter of fact, I work PT for a city that is doing this very thing. All I am saying is that If I call for a Transfer ambulance from my HOME, I should be able to use who ever I damn well please, this is my right as an American CItizen. Stay safe everyone.... " E. Tate " wrote: The same way the city can dictate which garbage collection company you can, can’t, or must use. Cities have the power to regulate business to some extent within their jurisdiction. The courts have upheld these so called “ sole-provider†ordinances. The problem you run into is that cities are expected to protect their citizens. Also, they (at least larger cities) are expected to provide EMS coverage. In days past this meant huge subsidies to EMS services to provide 911 coverage. With the sole-provider model subsidies are becoming a thing of the past. By allowing ABC EMS to have a sole-provider contract the governing entity can escape the EMS subsidy and revert those monies to more important services. Competition is a good thing, even in EMS. However, too much competition causes the level of care for everyone involved to diminish because the money just isn’t there to sustain any single company. There must be regulation. We aren’t going to change that. I’m not picking sides, just saying that’s how the cookie crumbles. Tater fremsdallas@... wrote: I would think that the freedom of choice and a free market economy trumps a city ordinance. How can a city dictate which ambulance provider(s) can or cannot be used by a private citizen--especially if it is a private request originating on private property and being paid for privately?? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Just illustrating the absurdity of assuming that the free market will work in every situation, as the core assumption that markets work is that the consumer has all of the information needed to make an informed decision. -Wes In a message dated 1/30/2006 9:01:45 PM Central Standard Time, THEDUDMAN@... writes: Wes, Once you get all this information from the EMS crew, how long do you wait on scene to obtain all this on the possible ED's you could be transported to? Or do you only care this much about the ride to the hospital and not the hospital care itself? What about your private physician? Do you get this on his/her office staff? Just curious... Dudley Re: Re: City Ordinances > Economists say that the free market works best when the consumer has full > information. Do you provide consumers with full information about your > service? In such a system, I'd ask the following: > Who is your medical director? > Who will be transporting me? > What equipment do you carry? > How much insurance do you have? > May I see the personnel and disciplinary records of the medics providing > care? > What is your company's regulatory history? > May I see your past 3 years of financial statements? > > While I actually do favor the free market, I recognize that there is a > role > and place for proper government regulation of the marketplace. And with this I agree to a certain extent. If I was a resident of a city, I would expect a regulatory agency to make sure that the ambulance services allowed to operate there meet all federal, state, and local safety/crew/medical requirements. And as such, the city should have the right to inspect vehicles at any time, receive service information upon request, and require that the service remains in compliance all of the time to maintain the priviledge of operating there. In my experience, franchise applications require documents supporting your medical direction, copies of all of your licenses (TDH, DEA, DPS, etc.), full staffing information, liability insurance proof, vehicle insurance, application fees, rate sheets, and much more. The paperwork is neverending, and it becomes public record. But three years of financial statements for non-exclusive " permission " to operate in the city? Not agreeing 100% with that; kinda kicks the new or small provider from ever having a chance to offer the area's patients something better than what currently exists. Prove that you have funding to operate (such as a sizable SBA loan) and significant management/EMS experience? Sure. But you won't have three years of financial statements unless you have been operating somewhere for three years, but how can you operate somewhere for three years unless a city grants you a franchise in the first place? In this rural area, franchises are required in any city of any reasonable size... the remaining services are volunteer and everything else is far and few between. Maybe things are different in more densely-populated areas of Texas. Sad part is, even if you meet and/or exceed all of the " city's requirements " during the application process, your permission to operate is still determined by a group of elected people. Not by medical professionals. Not determined by the people who must deal with the city's medical needs on a daily basis, and are the ones voicing a desire for change. That's the problem. You know I like to play the devil's advocate as well Wes. Can't make life too easy for you ;-) Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.