Lyme Disease - NY OPMC Bill Current Status

Author

NY OPMC Bill Current Status

Neurolyme

2004-11-08, 11:08 am

STATUS:
A4274-B Gottfried (MS)
Public Health Law
TITLE....Relates to proceedings and administrative review by the state
board for professional medical conduct

02/13/03 referred to health
04/30/03 amend (t) and recommit to health
04/30/03 print number 4274a
05/06/03 reported referred to codes
05/20/03 reported referred to rules
06/09/03 rules report cal.359
06/09/03 ordered to third reading rules cal.359
06/09/03 passed assembly
06/09/03 delivered to senate
06/09/03 REFERRED TO RULES
01/07/04 DIED IN SENATE
01/07/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
01/07/04 committed to rules
02/02/04 rules report cal.188
02/02/04 ordered to third reading rules cal.188
02/02/04 passed assembly
02/02/04 delivered to senate
02/02/04 REFERRED TO HEALTH
06/16/04 recalled from senate
06/16/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
06/17/04 vote reconsidered - restored to third reading
06/17/04 amended on third reading 4274b
06/21/04 repassed assembly
06/21/04 returned to senate
06/21/04 COMMITTED TO RULES
06/21/04 SUBSTITUTED FOR S4148A
06/21/04 3RD READING CAL.1193
06/22/04 RECOMMITTED TO RULES
07/21/04 RESTORED TO THIRD READING
07/21/04 PASSED SENATE
07/21/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY

A_Weisman

2004-11-09, 7:10 pm

Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411080805.33ab9f60@posting.google.com>...
> STATUS:
> A4274-B Gottfried (MS)
> Public Health Law
> TITLE....Relates to proceedings and administrative review by the state
> board for professional medical conduct
>
> 02/13/03 referred to health
> 04/30/03 amend (t) and recommit to health
> 04/30/03 print number 4274a
> 05/06/03 reported referred to codes
> 05/20/03 reported referred to rules
> 06/09/03 rules report cal.359
> 06/09/03 ordered to third reading rules cal.359
> 06/09/03 passed assembly
> 06/09/03 delivered to senate
> 06/09/03 REFERRED TO RULES
> 01/07/04 DIED IN SENATE
> 01/07/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
> 01/07/04 committed to rules
> 02/02/04 rules report cal.188
> 02/02/04 ordered to third reading rules cal.188
> 02/02/04 passed assembly
> 02/02/04 delivered to senate
> 02/02/04 REFERRED TO HEALTH
> 06/16/04 recalled from senate
> 06/16/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY
> 06/17/04 vote reconsidered - restored to third reading
> 06/17/04 amended on third reading 4274b
> 06/21/04 repassed assembly
> 06/21/04 returned to senate
> 06/21/04 COMMITTED TO RULES
> 06/21/04 SUBSTITUTED FOR S4148A
> 06/21/04 3RD READING CAL.1193
> 06/22/04 RECOMMITTED TO RULES
> 07/21/04 RESTORED TO THIRD READING
> 07/21/04 PASSED SENATE
> 07/21/04 RETURNED TO ASSEMBLY

So bottom line, does the bill now require any further action by either
house of the NY state legislature, or simply a signature by the
Governor?

According to the above, it would appear that the bill requires further
action by the Assembly?

The proponents of the bill in Lymeland previously (months ago) told
people that Pataki's signature was required prior to the end of
September but now say the "drop dead" date is today or tomorrow?

Any clarifications if you know, thanks in advance.

Neurolyme

2004-11-10, 2:11 am

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411091402.5118aad8@posting.google.com>...
> Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411080805.33ab9f60@posting.google.com>...
>
> So bottom line, does the bill now require any further action by either
> house of the NY state legislature, or simply a signature by the
> Governor?
>
> According to the above, it would appear that the bill requires further
> action by the Assembly?
>
> The proponents of the bill in Lymeland previously (months ago) told
> people that Pataki's signature was required prior to the end of
> September but now say the "drop dead" date is today or tomorrow?
>
> Any clarifications if you know, thanks in advance.

Glad you asked LOL.

Those people have "dropped dead" so many times now, that they and the
bill are on life support.

A bill cannot be signed by the governor unless it is passed by both
houses and then sent to the governor by the house which first passed
the bill (Assembly in this case).

The first drop dead date that was announced by the above referenced
parties was out of ignorance that the bill had to be transmitted to
the governor, and they assumed the constitutional deadline for
passage. Other announced drop-dead dates related to actions that they
anticipated, but did not happen.

A bill might not be immediately transmitted for several reasons
(non-inclusive):

1) Bills are not ordinarily immediately transmitted since they are so
numerous that they cannot be properly addressed, so they are spaced.
Exceptions usually are budget bills, bills of high visibility/urgency,
or bills passed subject to a message of necessity. This is because
the vast majority of bills are passed in the last few days of session.
It usually takes about 1-2 months to transmit.

2)Bills are sometimes bunched together in quids pro quo. (You can tell
me if that's the proper plural.)

3) Bills are sometimes passed in anticipation of veto in order to
placate a constituency. (2-way vs 3-way agreement in NY-speak) There
can be avoidance of transmission until a time that it will not be
noticed, or that the relevant parties are unavailable.

4)A bill may be passed either with the knowlege that the governor will
veto, or without that knowlege (except to the governor). This
sometimes leads to the hope that a deal can be made with the governor.
Either as a quid pro quo (never public), or as an amendment. In
Lymeland, hope springs eternal. In this case, if the governor
telegraphs that he will not sign, the Assembly may reconsider the bill
and add provisions to the liking of the governor. If that happens,
the Assembly transmits the bill to the Senate and the process starts
over. The opportunity now exists for this, at least in the procedural
sense, since the legislature will probably meet again on or about Nov
18. The most recent announced drop dead date of the life support
people has to do with activities in which they are participating, not
legislative procedure.

You and I have previously discussed quite some time ago that session
ending is kept vague for political reasons, and that in this way
deadlines can be manipulated with different constitutional
consequences. I'm not going to discuss that further here.

There is almost no chance that a veto on this bill would be overridden
in spite of unanimous passage, since bills pass only at the pleasure
of the leaders, and unanimity is symbolic.

I think that's all.

Your are now a weiserman.

Neurolyme

2004-11-10, 2:11 am

A_Weisman

2004-11-16, 4:30 pm

Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411092025.7ecf991e@posting.google.com>...
> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411091402.5118aad8@posting.google.com>...
>
> Glad you asked LOL.
>
> Those people have "dropped dead" so many times now, that they and the
> bill are on life support.
>
> A bill cannot be signed by the governor unless it is passed by both
> houses and then sent to the governor by the house which first passed
> the bill (Assembly in this case).

Ok but I think you misunderstood my first question. From the
chronology of events that you provided above, it appears that after
the bill passed the Senate, it was returned to the Assembly.

There is nothing after that.

Was the bill subsequently transmitted by the Assembly to the Governor
for signature?

In fact, preliminary to that, was the version of the bill that passed
the Senate, identical to the one passed in the Assembly on 6/21 or did
the Senate pass a different version? If it was different, I assume it
requires resubmission for passage in identical version again by the
Assembly? Alternatively does NY have a "conference" system whereby the
two chambers appoint a joint committee to iron out the differences?

In other words, is there a bill that has passed both houses of the NY
State legislature in identical version which even could be submitted
to the Governor for passage?

And has the bill even been submitted to the Governor for signature?

If not, are the Lyme activists once again sending everyone off on a
wild snipe hunt?

And is it accurate that the bill had to have been signed yesterday or
it died?

> The first drop dead date that was announced by the above referenced
> parties was out of ignorance

There seems to be an endless supply of that.

You'd think that after more than five years at this, even a novice
like E L would have learned at least the first and most basic
fundamentals?

I guess she's been too busy issuing action alerts to get the first
clue?

>that the bill had to be transmitted to
> the governor, and they assumed the constitutional deadline for
> passage. Other announced drop-dead dates related to actions that they
> anticipated, but did not happen.

For example? Not sure I follow.

> A bill might not be immediately transmitted for several reasons
> (non-inclusive):

See above. Has the bill been transmitted? Is there a bill that can be
submitted that has passed both houses in identical form?

Even more basic, why should Lyme patients support this bill that has
nothing to do with Lyme and may protect bad doctors? Why is it touted
as doing things that it clearly doesn't do?

> 1) Bills are not ordinarily immediately transmitted since they are so
> numerous that they cannot be properly addressed, so they are spaced.

Why "too numerous to be properly addressed"? Is there a time limit
after submission that the Governor has to sign or veto a bill? Is
there a "pocket veto" and what happens during adjournments of the
legislature?

What is the process, if any, for the legislature to override a
gubenatorial veto?

> Exceptions usually are budget bills, bills of high visibility/urgency,
> or bills passed subject to a message of necessity. This is because
> the vast majority of bills are passed in the last few days of session.
> It usually takes about 1-2 months to transmit.

Why so long?

> 2)Bills are sometimes bunched together in quids pro quo. (You can tell
> me if that's the proper plural.)

I could tell you if I knew? One dictionary I accessed provided this:

pl. quid pro quos or quids pro quo

So either appears to be correct.

> 3) Bills are sometimes passed in anticipation of veto in order to
> placate a constituency. (2-way vs 3-way agreement in NY-speak) There
> can be avoidance of transmission until a time that it will not be
> noticed, or that the relevant parties are unavailable.

LOL Do ya think?

> 4)A bill may be passed either with the knowlege that the governor will
> veto, or without that knowlege (except to the governor). This
> sometimes leads to the hope that a deal can be made with the governor.
> Either as a quid pro quo (never public), or as an amendment. In
> Lymeland, hope springs eternal. In this case, if the governor
> telegraphs that he will not sign, the Assembly may reconsider the bill
> and add provisions to the liking of the governor. If that happens,
> the Assembly transmits the bill to the Senate and the process starts
> over. The opportunity now exists for this, at least in the procedural
> sense, since the legislature will probably meet again on or about Nov
> 18. The most recent announced drop dead date of the life support
> people has to do with activities in which they are participating, not
> legislative procedure.

What activities are you referring to?

> You and I have previously discussed quite some time ago that session
> ending is kept vague for political reasons, and that in this way
> deadlines can be manipulated with different constitutional
> consequences. I'm not going to discuss that further here.

I don't recall such a discussion however it is of no moment.

> There is almost no chance that a veto on this bill would be overridden
> in spite of unanimous passage, since bills pass only at the pleasure
> of the leaders, and unanimity is symbolic.
>
> I think that's all.

Please see above. Is there a bill that has been passed in identical
version that can be submitted to the Governor?

In the current form is the bill worthy of support? What does it do for
Lyme patients or their doctors? Does it protect bad doctors in an
effort to provide dubious protections for those so called llmds?

Is FAIM still involved with this? Does FAIM still exist? What about
their lobbyist?

It is true that a professional lobbyist was hired in the summer by
ILADS? What did he do?

What about the famous Dr D from SUNY? I hear there are some
developments worthy of note?

Is that merely a professional change of locales for him or was he
given the bum's rush out? If so, why?

Dish, please.

> Your are now a weiserman.

With every passing day.

Neurolyme

2004-11-16, 4:30 pm

Weisman-

I think if you had read this in its entirety and more carefully before
picking it apart, you would have fewer questions. Most of the answers
are built in to my original response. I'll try to fill in some of the
gaps below.

a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411100603.292f750a@posting.google.com>...
> Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411092025.7ecf991e@posting.google.com>...
>
> Ok but I think you misunderstood my first question. From the
> chronology of events that you provided above, it appears that after
> the bill passed the Senate, it was returned to the Assembly.
>
> There is nothing after that.

There is nothing after that, since the Assembly never sent the bill to
the governor, perhaps for one of the reasons listed below. The most
recent amended version was passed by the Assembly as a4274b, followed
by the passage of the Senate companion bill - s4148a. The bill, as is
usual, was returned to the Assembly for transmission to the governor.
As explained below, there are alternatives. Only companion bills are
listed on a given status list. There are other status lists for other
related, but not identical, or not passed, OPMC bills.

>
> Was the bill subsequently transmitted by the Assembly to the Governor
> for signature?

No

>
> In fact, preliminary to that, was the version of the bill that passed
> the Senate, identical to the one passed in the Assembly on 6/21 or did
> the Senate pass a different version? If it was different, I assume it
> requires resubmission for passage in identical version again by the
> Assembly? Alternatively does NY have a "conference" system whereby the
> two chambers appoint a joint committee to iron out the differences?
>
> In other words, is there a bill that has passed both houses of the NY
> State legislature in identical version which even could be submitted
> to the Governor for passage?

The bills being discussed are companion bills which were passed in
both houses, and there is no established conference system. Which
allows for diminished openess in NY.

>
> And has the bill even been submitted to the Governor for signature?

NO, no, no.

>
> If not, are the Lyme activists once again sending everyone off on a
> wild snipe hunt?

You would have to ask them. A good guess would be that they deem this
to be a good negotiating tactic with reference to #4 - below.

>
> And is it accurate that the bill had to have been signed yesterday or
> it died?

NO.

>
>
> There seems to be an endless supply of that.
>
> You'd think that after more than five years at this, even a novice
> like E L would have learned at least the first and most basic
> fundamentals?
>
> I guess she's been too busy issuing action alerts to get the first
> clue?
>
>
> For example? Not sure I follow

You "yourself" just refered to all the action alerts.

>
>
> See above. Has the bill been transmitted? Is there a bill that can be
> submitted that has passed both houses in identical form?
>
> Even more basic, why should Lyme patients support this bill that has
> nothing to do with Lyme and may protect bad doctors? Why is it touted
> as doing things that it clearly doesn't do?

I am not the one to ask these questions. Perhaps you could ask EL et
al.?

>
>
> Why "too numerous to be properly addressed"? Is there a time limit
> after submission that the Governor has to sign or veto a bill? Is
> there a "pocket veto" and what happens during adjournments of the
> legislature?

These items will be addressed in the course "NY Legislative Procedure
102", which will be offered next year. You are now auditing 101.

>
> What is the process, if any, for the legislature to override a
> gubenatorial veto?

Totally not relevant in this case.

>
>
> Why so long?

>
>
> I could tell you if I knew? One dictionary I accessed provided this:
>
> pl. quid pro quos or quids pro quo
>
> So either appears to be correct.

Thank you. It's good to be correct.

>
>
> LOL Do ya think?
>
>
> What activities are you referring to?

Ask them.

>
>
> I don't recall such a discussion however it is of no moment.

What is "no moment"?

>
>
> Please see above. Is there a bill that has been passed in identical
> version that can be submitted to the Governor?

Already answered ad nauseum.

>
> In the current form is the bill (1)worthy of support? What does it do for
> (2)Lyme patients or (3)their doctors? (4)Does it protect bad doctors in an
> effort to provide dubious protections for those so called llmds?

1)you decide
2)nothing, except to the extent that it may minimally help their
doctors.
3)minimal protections
4)Yes, it could be interpreted in that way.

>
> Is FAIM still involved with this? Does FAIM still exist? What about
> their lobbyist?

Ask FAIM

>
> It is true that a professional lobbyist was hired in the summer by
> ILADS? What did he do?

Do your own homework.

>
> What about the famous Dr D from SUNY? I hear there are some
> developments worthy of note?

Who?

>
> Is that merely a professional change of locales for him or was he
> given the bum's rush out? If so, why?
>
> Dish, please.
>
>
> With every passing day.

End of discussion.

A_Weisman

2004-11-16, 4:30 pm

Neurolyme@HotMail.com (Neurolyme) wrote in message news:<8d125677.0411101159.7ccffb80@posting.google.com>...
> Weisman-
>
> I think if you had read this in its entirety and more carefully before
> picking it apart, you would have fewer questions.

I did read it carefully. I didn't "pick it apart" I asked questions.

Maybe if you read what I asked more carefully in the first place, I
wouldn't have had to ask again?

Whatever. In any event, now you appear to have answered it.

> Most of the answers
> are built in to my original response. I'll try to fill in some of the
> gaps below.

The only gap I really needed filled in was whether or not the
identical bill had been passed in both houses. That much wasn't clear
either from your first post listing the chronology since it didn't
provide that detail and wasn't at all clear from your subsequent
response.

Some of the other things I asked to give you a chance to explicate.

> a_weisman@yahoo.com (A_Weisman) wrote in message news:<e55e6d97.0411100603.292f750a@posting.google.com>...
>
> There is nothing after that, since the Assembly never sent the bill to
> the governor, perhaps for one of the reasons listed below.

What wasn't clear to me was whether or not what passed the Senate was
on 7/21 was what passed the Assembly on 6/21 since it was returned the
Assembly AGAIN after passing.

I didn't know the procedural rule where apparently the assembly is
responsible for submitting the bill--otherwise why return it to the
Assembly unless it required passage in the same form as in the Senate?
But NOW you have explained that the Assembly rather than the Senate
transmits the bills for whatever reason.

> The most
> recent amended version was passed by the Assembly as a4274b, followed
> by the passage of the Senate companion bill - s4148a. The bill, as is
> usual, was returned to the Assembly for transmission to the governor.

See THAT I didn't know. And it wasn't possible to see which version
was being sent where at various points in the chronology you provided.

> As explained below, there are alternatives. Only companion bills are
> listed on a given status list. There are other status lists for other
> related, but not identical, or not passed, OPMC bills.

I didn't know that so the chronology provided didn't give me that
information.

>
> No

So WHY in the world is E L and her minions telling people to call
Pataki and tell him to sign the freaking bill at this point?

To be clear, the above is a RHETORICAL question as I don't expect you
to speak for her or explain her actions.

>
> The bills being discussed are companion bills which were passed in
> both houses, and there is no established conference system. Which
> allows for diminished openess in NY.

In the US Congress the conference system doesn't provide for any
particular increased openess. Conference negotiations aren't conducted
publicly like hearings or actions before the full senate or house or
one of their committees in public hearings.

>
> NO, no, no.

I see I see I see.

>
> You would have to ask them. A good guess would be that they deem this
> to be a good negotiating tactic with reference to #4 - below.

I'm not going to ask them. I know they won't answer either because
they don't know, don't understand or have some huge secret reason for
what they think they're doing and that generally the answer is that
they just don't know what they're doing.

Anyway I don't actually care. I only asked out of intellectual
curiousity but it isn't a burning curiousity.

> And is it accurate that the bill had to have been signed yesterday
or
>
> NO.

LOL ROTFL LMAO Wild snipe hunt.

>
> You "yourself" just refered to all the action alerts.

I wasn't thinking of anything specifically but apparently you were but
if you prefer to be cryptic that's fine, I don't care.

>
> I am not the one to ask these questions. Perhaps you could ask EL et
> al.?

Zero chance of that. You know she wouldn't or couldn't answer and
frankly I don't care enough to pursue it.

are so[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> These items will be addressed in the course "NY Legislative Procedure
> 102", which will be offered next year. You are now auditing 101.

I'm not taking the course for credit because I don't give a damn. I
only wrote on this thread out of pure intellectual curiousity.
Similarly if someone used a word I didn't know, I would look it up,
whether or not it really mattered to me whether I understood.
Intellectual curiousity only. If someone asked me a trivia question
I'd Google the answer otherwise it would bug me. But the knowledge
wouldn't make a real difference in my life.

> What is the process, if any, for the legislature to override a
>
> Totally not relevant in this case.

Why? Wondering what happens IF the bill is ever transmitted and
governor vetoes it. Again intellectual curiousity only. I understand
that you're saying that the bill won't be transmitted if it is going
to be vetoed unless there is some other strategic reason for doing so
and that doesn't apply here.

I guess this will be covered in NYS legislative procedure 102.

>
>
> Thank you. It's good to be correct.

You would have been correct either way. Only not correct if you had
said "quids pro quos."

But I'm glad that you're happy to be correct. Give yourself a gold
star for latin to english translation 101, lesson 1.

>
> Ask them.

NOT.

>
> What is "no moment"?

It means "Of no significance." As in "it doesn't matter." As in "I
don't care."

>
> Already answered ad nauseum.

I repeated the question only to make sure it was answered. It was
actually my original question, which you answered voluminously but not
the question I asked. I didn't really ask about all the strategic
reasons why a bill might or might not be transmitted to the Governor.
But that's fine that you answered that, it was all very interesting in
the purely intellectual sense.

Though it was much more than I asked.

So, yes, now you've answered my original question. Maybe I didn't ask
it clearly enough the first time since you answered everything but,
and more.

>
> 1)you decide

I don't care. I was trying to give you an opportunity to comment.
Personally I don't give a crap.

> 2)nothing, except to the extent that it may minimally help their
> doctors.

Emphasize minimally. Note that the proponents of this in Lymeland are
once again totally misleading people.

Of course that worked for George W Bush.

> 3)minimal protections

Emphasize minimal. Compare to claims by E L et al. Note that the
claims are misleading at best, possibly deliberate lies. The former is
incompetent the latter is despicable.

> 4)Yes, it could be interpreted in that way.

Danger danger will robinson. Doctors are already mostly beyond
accountability.

>
> Ask FAIM

NOT.

But I thought I read something about them disbanding?

>
> Do your own homework.

Well that's what I heard. For something like $3000 a month? And NOT
FAIM or Monica Miller but some Albany lawyer?

Again, if you don't want to answer you can assume that I won't follow
up since I don't really give a shit.

>
> Who?

Dr Ray Dattwyler. I heard he's on the outs or something? Or there was
some scandal?

>
> End of discussion.

OK

A_Weisman

2004-11-16, 4:30 pm