Re: Re: City Ordinances

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

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]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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 ;-)

[Guest guest]

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 ;-)

[Guest guest]

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 ;-)

[Guest guest]

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]

[Guest guest]

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]

[Guest guest]

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]

[Guest guest]

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]