board sunsets

[Guest guest]

I got a letter today from CA DCA informing me that the CA acupuncture

board will cease to exist on 1/12007. This requires no legislation.

It happens automatically under current law. Some folks probably

thought we ducked the arrow when the bill was tabled earlier this

year. But that bill was just trying to speed up the inevitable.

However, I predict our state organizations will waste valuable time

and money trying to introduce legislation to stop this. The letter

makes it quite clear that the DCA considers the board to be a

disreputable organization that does not protect the public. And

every effort we make to thwart this just makes us look like

unscrupulous charlatans who also couldn't care less about our patients.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:44 PM, wrote:

> And every effort we make to thwart this just makes us look like 

> unscrupulous charlatans who also couldn't care less about our patients.

> ----

 

 

 

You are probably right about this, but I really don't understand the

logic of such a view. Given that there are other professional boards

that operate without the taint of corruption, why can't the problem of

the acupuncture board be solved by dealing directly with the

corruption, and replacing those who perpetrate it, rather than throwing

the baby our with the bathwater. Has this been tried?

 

OTOH, my nervousness about this is largely due to the unknown future. I

really don't understand what will happen in regulation of the

profession once the board is gone. How will this occur? Aside from the

presumed absence of corruption, what will change?

 

Rory

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Big concern over NO professional representation. NO other healthcare

profession has been reduced to this as this is an extreme position that

could easily be remedied with new members/employees. We should be careful

with this and might want to rethink our choices.

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

>Rory Kerr <rorykerr

>

>

>Re: board sunsets

>Sun, 03 Jul 2005 01:57:49 -0400

>

>On Jul 2, 2005, at 6:44 PM, wrote:

> > And every effort we make to thwart this just makes us look like 

> > unscrupulous charlatans who also couldn't care less about our patients.

> > ----

>

>

>

>You are probably right about this, but I really don't understand the

>logic of such a view. Given that there are other professional boards

>that operate without the taint of corruption, why can't the problem of

>the acupuncture board be solved by dealing directly with the

>corruption, and replacing those who perpetrate it, rather than throwing

>the baby our with the bathwater. Has this been tried?

>

>OTOH, my nervousness about this is largely due to the unknown future. I

>really don't understand what will happen in regulation of the

>profession once the board is gone. How will this occur? Aside from the

>presumed absence of corruption, what will change?

>

>Rory

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/2/05 6:45:25 PM, writes:

 

 

> The letter 

> makes it quite clear that the DCA considers the board to be a 

> disreputable organization that does not protect the public.  And 

> every effort we make to thwart this just makes us look like 

> unscrupulous charlatans who also couldn't care less about our patients.

>

 

Unfortunately, it is the colleges who make us look bad, but they have the

money, so they have screwed us again! Colleges consistently try to keep our

educational levels low so they can get more " barefoot doctors " and our

prerequisites low so they can take anyone in. California has been famous for

decades for

this infighting between the profession and a few of the colleges. That is, th

ecolleges who wish to have leadership of the council of colleges, who happen to

have scads of money due to having had a monopoly on clean needle training for

the same decades. Interesting on how the same monies we as acupuncturists

have paid to take a required course which should have been intrinsic to our

education has been used to keep us barefoot and pregnant as a profession. The

same

folks who didnt want to start at the doctorate level and raise the education

to meet current standards like every other profession has done, basically

because they didn't want to pay for physical plant improvements like a larger

library or reasonably paid staff.

 

Imagine. The only profession where the colleges want people to have a lower

educational level and are willing to pay lobbyists to keep it that way, while

at the same time working to keep students from being required to have any

significant biomedicine prereqs.

 

Disreputable organizations? The colleges have come a long way in the past 3-4

years, which is a good thing for our profession, but it is a little late for

California.

 

David Molony

101 Bridge Street

Catasauqua, PA 18032

Phone (610)264-2755

Fax (610) 264-7292

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...>

wrote:

> Big concern over NO professional representation. NO other healthcare

> profession has been reduced to this as this is an extreme position that

> could easily be remedied with new members/employees. We should be careful

> with this and might want to rethink our choices.

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

That is the issue here. the board is not supposed to not REPRESENT the

profession. That is

not its mandate. that is the corruption of it or any board's mandate, which is

to protect the

public. This is what got the board in trouble in the first place. Professional

organizations

represent the profession. The dept of consumer affairs will protect the public

fine and

cheaper with all the same staff. The board of medical examiners does a fine job

in Oregon.

These are trivial points. If you want a board that primarily represents the

practitioners, why

not just do away with any pretense of licensure improving public safety and be

done with it.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

That is a bit of an extremist approach to things.

 

If you could, please provide one example of a healthcare board that no

longer has professional representation from its licensees. I cannot think

of any.

 

By moving the board to a bureau under the DCA there will no longer be any

legit feedback from the profession on issues related to practice. A

bureaucrat is not likely to have a clue as to what the profession is like

and things could go from bad to ugly due to other political forces (AMA

anyone?).

 

This is not a normal circumstance nor a legit reason to do away with it.

The logical way to rectify this is to appoint new members and a new

director, not eliminate the board. Something is afoot as they say and we

will most likely not like what comes our way.

 

One last point. The Gov was trying to get rid of ALL boards not just us, so

the idea that we are the only bad one in his mind is inaccurate. He also

thinks that the nurses are a special interest group.

 

what should be done with the other boards then?

 

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

> " " <

>

>

>Re: board sunsets

>Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:43:20 -0000

>

> , " mike Bowser " <naturaldoc1@h...>

>wrote:

> > Big concern over NO professional representation. NO other healthcare

> > profession has been reduced to this as this is an extreme position that

> > could easily be remedied with new members/employees. We should be

>careful

> > with this and might want to rethink our choices.

> >

> > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

>That is the issue here. the board is not supposed to not REPRESENT the

>profession. That is

>not its mandate. that is the corruption of it or any board's mandate,

>which is to protect the

>public. This is what got the board in trouble in the first place.

>Professional organizations

>represent the profession. The dept of consumer affairs will protect the

>public fine and

>cheaper with all the same staff. The board of medical examiners does a

>fine job in Oregon.

>These are trivial points. If you want a board that primarily represents

>the practitioners, why

>not just do away with any pretense of licensure improving public safety and

>be done with it.

>

>Todd

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/7/05 6:45:05 PM, writes:

 

 

> If you want a board that primarily represents the practitioners, why

> not just do away with any pretense of licensure improving public safety and

> be done with it.

>

 

I'm assuming the Chiro board is also beng sunseted? The DO board? The

cosmotologists? Nurses? Or are they examples of non political boards. My point

is

that if one is ending boards, and there is a hue and cry for that throughout the

states, it should be everyone, for there is a material advantage of the self

regulated over the state regulated.

 

 

 

David Molony

101 Bridge Street

Catasauqua, PA 18032

Phone (610)264-2755

Fax (610) 264-7292

 

**********Confidentiality Notice    **********

This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other

writings are confidential and are for the sole use of the intended

recipient(s) identified above.  This message may contain information

that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure

under applicable law, including the FTC Safeguard Rule and U.S.-EU Safe

Harbor Principles.  If you are the intended recipient, you are

responsible for establishing appropriate safeguards to maintain data

integrity and security.  If the receiver of this information is not the intended

recipient, or the employee, or agent responsible for

delivering the information to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any use, reading, dissemination, distribution, copying or

storage of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this information in error, please notify the sender by return

email and delete the electronic transmission, including all attachments from

your system.