Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS
Anthony T. Barr
Description
Collection
Title:
Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS
Creator:
Anthony T. Barr
Date:
4/23/2002
Text:
While I await for a reply from Mr.Wilson to determine the Barr Foundation's eligibility for AOPA membership, as a educational institutional organization (perhaps it is in the mail! ), and although I am neither, a member of the Academy nor AOPA (no consumers members allowed), I would like to use this forum and ask a few question of the Academy members re: Mr.Wilson's refusal to publicly address the questions presented on these specific issues.
If it was the Academy's board's decision by resolution to delegate all legislative negotiations to AOPA on behalf of the Academy membership , shouldn't AAOP members have the right to receive answers, to the Stock and Bills issues as well as the reasons for their support of legislation initiatives that excempts NOMA members ,PTs OTs and others to educational qualification, +from the leadership of AAOP and AOPA ?
AAOP support thru AOPA and AOPA's support of opening the quaification door wider via legislative negotiation of BOC, NOMA, PT,OT etc., are educational based and isnt that suppossed to be the Academy's main focus !
In the eyes of the legislators ,certainly any support that AOPA provided to legislation efforts and intiatives was on behalf of their own industry association and was also for the professional membership association, the Academy,(having delegated this authority to AOPA) including educational criteria and stock and bills issues ( having the delegated authority for AOPA to act on their behalf).
That being the case, there would be no reason for lawmakers to dispute what was jointly supported by both industry and profession!
Is not AOPA accountable and responsible for reporting the reasons for providing that support to the Academy membership?
Just one more a question from a mere consumer of these services!
Pursuant to Ron Gingras LPO suggestion and invitation (which I certainly encourage) to form a private discussion group to discuss these issues, and since AOPA will not publically participate to non members, can we break tradition and have consumer groups participate in the discussions as well?
Our organization and several other consumer groups that supported the Florida regulation effort would be very intersted in knowing whom will and who will be permited to provide these comprehensive health care services to them!
It may also provide some valuable insight and quite possibly, better align the interests of the profession and the consumer toward pursing reform.
Thank you,
TonyBarr
If it was the Academy's board's decision by resolution to delegate all legislative negotiations to AOPA on behalf of the Academy membership , shouldn't AAOP members have the right to receive answers, to the Stock and Bills issues as well as the reasons for their support of legislation initiatives that excempts NOMA members ,PTs OTs and others to educational qualification, +from the leadership of AAOP and AOPA ?
AAOP support thru AOPA and AOPA's support of opening the quaification door wider via legislative negotiation of BOC, NOMA, PT,OT etc., are educational based and isnt that suppossed to be the Academy's main focus !
In the eyes of the legislators ,certainly any support that AOPA provided to legislation efforts and intiatives was on behalf of their own industry association and was also for the professional membership association, the Academy,(having delegated this authority to AOPA) including educational criteria and stock and bills issues ( having the delegated authority for AOPA to act on their behalf).
That being the case, there would be no reason for lawmakers to dispute what was jointly supported by both industry and profession!
Is not AOPA accountable and responsible for reporting the reasons for providing that support to the Academy membership?
Just one more a question from a mere consumer of these services!
Pursuant to Ron Gingras LPO suggestion and invitation (which I certainly encourage) to form a private discussion group to discuss these issues, and since AOPA will not publically participate to non members, can we break tradition and have consumer groups participate in the discussions as well?
Our organization and several other consumer groups that supported the Florida regulation effort would be very intersted in knowing whom will and who will be permited to provide these comprehensive health care services to them!
It may also provide some valuable insight and quite possibly, better align the interests of the profession and the consumer toward pursing reform.
Thank you,
TonyBarr
Citation
Anthony T. Barr, “Fw: AOPA, NOMA, and Stock & Bills/US POLITICS,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 8, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/218799.
