I was involved with the push for licensure in Florida…. During our fight,
we found that ABC offered their help by attending hearings and endorsing our
positions. AAOP offered moral support and documentation… AOPA had no
interest in our cause…
It was very evident that there are differences in the objectives of the three
organizations, our state officials analyzed and recognized the motives of all
groups presenting information and suggestions on the formulation of our
practice act. Not just ABC, AOPA, and AAOP, but also DME, Podiatry,
Chiropractic, Pt’s, Pharmacists, BOC, Ot’s even hearing aids, eyeglasses,
Dentists… you name it, they were there… The fact that we presented our
data without mixing product with practice made for a significantly more
legitimate argument for regulation…
I cant help but think this same rational holds true in national politics….
Example: We need more $$ for education, if we present as a consolidated
group, we become the “salesmen” for the manufacturers (in the eyes of the
politico’s). They will be less inclined to recognize the profession, and more
inclined to see our causes as self serving for the “business” of P & O…
that my friends, I assure you, is a place we don’t want to be…. I would
also be inclined to think that this same sentiment will be universal on any
issue we present either on a state or national level…. In politics, the
appearance of a conflict of interest is just as significant as the real
deal… they don’t care what we think about ourselves… just how we look to
the outside world!!! that’s the reality of politics.
can we risk this???
for the sake of saving money????
the political downside potential here should not be underestimated!!!
food for thought,
Wade Bader, CPO