Widgets Magazine
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 117

Thread: Oklahoma State Questions

  1. Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTravellers View Post
    Still haven't heard an answer about this from you (or anybody), can you point me to where the SQ says that?
    I was sitting in a Firestone tire waiting area this morning so I didn’t catch names but Channel 9 was interviewing some state official about the issue. He said that since the optometrists in retail settings would be held to the same standards as optometrists are now that the idea of lower care in retail settings is not true. He was specifically asked if retailers could set standards of operation for optometrists on their site and he responded “Absolutely not. All optometrists are held to the same standards by the state”.

  2. #52

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    The funny thing is there won't even be any optometrists in retail settings, they'll still be in doctor's offices. What, are they trying to imply you'll be getting an eye exam in aisle 5 between the bread and the peanut butter? Of course not. Continuing with the Walmart example, they will have an area in the front that is within the building itself, but NOT part of Walmart. Like many that have a hair styling place inside, I imagine the receipt says whatever the name of the hair styling place is, not Walmart. (Can't be sure on this as I've not had a haircut at such places, but if they have their own sign, I would imagine they have their own receipts). Those that have a McDonald's inside...you're still buying your chicken nuggets from McDonald's. When they have Jackson Hewitt kiosks set up, your taxes are being done by Jackson Hewitt, not Walmart. The only place Walmart features in the setup is as a landlord.

    Maybe this is what all the fuss is about? They think eye doctors are going to be setting up kiosks? As if they don't need a room set to a certain brightness (or lack thereof) in order to perform the exam? Well if they're that damn dumb maybe they DO think they're buying Quarter Pounders from Walmart.

    You want to see what's going to happen when this passes, simply go to any of 47 other states. I believe I've noted before, the Costcos with eye centers DO NOT have an eye doctor in the store. They have one in the same building, with their own separate entrance, and the receipt doesn't say Costco for one simple reason...they don't work for Costco. That's what 'independent' means.

    From https://www.costco.com/optical.html

    "If you need an exam, please call an Independent Doctor of Optometry* at or next to Costco Optical to schedule an appointment.

    *Independent Doctors of Optometry are located at or next to Costco Optical in most states. "

    https://www.eyeexampros.com/wal-mart-faqs/

  3. #53

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Bill and stile99 - That's the point I was trying to make and call Midtowner out on his misinformation, thank you for confirming exactly what I thought.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    6,697
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Ballot text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Sta...tiative_(2018)

    I think this may be the confusing part?
    "It does not prohibit optometrists and opticians from agreeing with retail mercantile establishments to limit their practice. Laws conflicting with this Section are void."

    I think that references Section 3 Paragraph F in the Full Text: https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/793.pdf

  5. Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    In CO, the optometrist is Wal Mart branded and is in the front of the store as described above. The office is separate, but accessible from the optical shop and also has a door to the entrance area inside the store. I've used them and COSTCO for 10+ years and have never had problems. They have always been competent and professional and are far cheaper than the traditional offices. There is no reason to limit the discounters.

  6. #56

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by shawnw View Post
    Ballot text here: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Sta...tiative_(2018)

    I think this may be the confusing part?
    "It does not prohibit optometrists and opticians from agreeing with retail mercantile establishments to limit their practice. Laws conflicting with this Section are void."

    I think that references Section 3 Paragraph F in the Full Text: https://www.sos.ok.gov/documents/questions/793.pdf
    They don’t have to offer their fill scope of practice. They still have to offer the legal minimum of practice as required by their licensing body. If the State Board requires certain exams, they are not exempt.

  7. #57

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    After giving much thought about SQ 801, I am firmly against it. Why? Twenty-five years experience with public schools in OK. In theory it sounds good, giving flexibility to local districts; however, in practice I can think of scenarios such as: giving a coach a pay increase of thousands of dollars, while giving other teachers nothing (nothing in the law says that can't happen, and you can't rely on local school boards not to fall victim to the dream of having a "winning" coach!) or another, buying one of the teams all new uniforms (nothing wrong with that), but then NOT using the money to repair leaky roofs, failing HVAC systems, etc. The bill relies on the wisdom, expertise, experience, and dedication of an elected school board to provide to ALL parts of a school district and to be fair, reasonable, and smart about spending money. No, the current system isn't that great, but I foresee that this bill will bring a whole new dimension to the "law of unintended consequences."

  8. #58

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Good articles with numbers and hard information about SQ794:

    https://nondoc.com/2018/10/16/sq-794...-constitution/

    https://okpolicy.org/marsys-law-is-w...-consequences/

    Apparently a similar law was ruled unconstitutional in Montana, so armed with that knowledge and the costs of it, along with other things wrong with it, it's a no for me.

  9. #59

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by old okie View Post
    After giving much thought about SQ 801, I am firmly against it. Why? Twenty-five years experience with public schools in OK. In theory it sounds good, giving flexibility to local districts; however, in practice I can think of scenarios such as: giving a coach a pay increase of thousands of dollars, while giving other teachers nothing (nothing in the law says that can't happen, and you can't rely on local school boards not to fall victim to the dream of having a "winning" coach!) or another, buying one of the teams all new uniforms (nothing wrong with that), but then NOT using the money to repair leaky roofs, failing HVAC systems, etc. The bill relies on the wisdom, expertise, experience, and dedication of an elected school board to provide to ALL parts of a school district and to be fair, reasonable, and smart about spending money. No, the current system isn't that great, but I foresee that this bill will bring a whole new dimension to the "law of unintended consequences."
    Voters would hopefully vote down bonds that want to fund something that may not seem appropriate, for instance, raising the pay of anybody by a huge amount. If I knew legislators next year would do their jobs and be responsible enough to better fund the schools, I wouldn't be feeling that I have to vote yes on 801. So far, as I see it, candidates are only paying it lip service. They don't want to say where the funding for education is to come from. Voters already made it clear they don't want to pay more sales tax for education, which is another good reason to vote yes for 801.

  10. #60

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by jedicurt View Post
    Anastasia Pittman and Matt Pinnell and the independent is something holmes.. he is the one that i don't know much about

    Anastasia Pittman beet out Anna Dearmore in the primary for the Dems

    and Matt Pinnell beat out Dana Murphy for the GOP.

    so my question is this... if we combine the ticket will we get to choose the candidate for each ticket in the primaries? or will the gubernatorial candidate select each one? there are a lot of questions with regard to this state question on how things will actually change and will it just end up giving us fewer choices as voters.... and i still have not heard a single reason as to why this change is needed.

    i'm very passionate about it because if it isn't broke and there is no positive outcome from making the change... then why give voters fewer choices? doesn't it sound like we a voters are the only one to gain or lose anything here?
    I think Republicans put it up so they can be assured a Republican will replace their governor should he or she have to leave office.

  11. #61

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunty View Post
    Voters would hopefully vote down bonds that want to fund something that may not seem appropriate, for instance, raising the pay of anybody by a huge amount. If I knew legislators next year would do their jobs and be responsible enough to better fund the schools, I wouldn't be feeling that I have to vote yes on 801. So far, as I see it, candidates are only paying it lip service. They don't want to say where the funding for education is to come from. Voters already made it clear they don't want to pay more sales tax for education, which is another good reason to vote yes for 801.
    After reading the article in the paper today, it is my understanding (which may be wrong) that once the voters approve a bond issue under 801, then the school board would have the final say about expending the funds--not the voters. Would an extravagant expenditure be possible? Sounds like it. Could anything be done--legal proceedings, voting out school board members, firing superintendent, etc., but that would be eventually. No telling how long it might take. We like to think that those who are on the many school boards would always do what is best for the students, teachers, etc., but apparently there are no guarantees in the bill.

    In all fairness whether or not the bill passes, it will not affect me; I'm retired, have no children in any schools, but I do have many friends who are still working in the schools. They realize the potential--and that is the key idea, "potential"--for many abuses if a board were given carte blanche with no controls over expending what should be spent on improvements for buildings, etc.

  12. #62

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunty View Post
    I think Republicans put it up so they can be assured a Republican will replace their governor should he or she have to leave office.
    exactly... this... and that is why (even though i am a Republican) i think it is wrong for our state

  13. #63

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    It also doesn't make sense, since if the Lt. Governor resigns, the Governor doesn't get to appoint a replacement. From what I understand the President Pro Tem of the Senate automatically succeeds the Lt. Governor.

  14. #64

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    It also doesn't make sense, since if the Lt. Governor resigns, the Governor doesn't get to appoint a replacement. From what I understand the President Pro Tem of the Senate automatically succeeds the Lt. Governor.
    correct... and that could be someone from the other party

  15. #65

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Stillwater News Press online poll for SQ793:

    How do you plan to vote on State Question 793, about optometrists and opticians being able to practice in a retail store?
    YES: 99 votes, 49%
    NO: 82 votes, 41%
    I'm not sure: 18 votes, 9%
    I'll skip that one: 3 votes, 1%

  16. #66

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunty View Post
    Stillwater News Press online poll for SQ793:

    How do you plan to vote on State Question 793, about optometrists and opticians being able to practice in a retail store?
    YES: 99 votes, 49%
    NO: 82 votes, 41%
    I'm not sure: 18 votes, 9%
    I'll skip that one: 3 votes, 1%
    Astounding. Looks like the FUD campaign is doing exactly what it is designed to do.

  17. #67

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    District Attorney for Payne and Logan Counties candidate, Cory Williams, this to say when asked about SQ794:

    “My public statement is one of ambivalence. It is neither a great law and is going to be the end all be all of victim’s rights, nor is it a bad law. I traditionally am against putting anything into the Oklahoma Constitution. If anybody in here has tried to read it, you know it is a very long, very cumbersome document. It takes multiple days. Two years ago, we pulled all of our alcohol laws out of the state Constitution. Why? Because anytime you want to change something in it, it has to go to a vote of the people. It’s very cumbersome, it’s very expensive and it’s very time-consuming. We have a victim’s Bill of Rights in the state already, it’s a statute. Now we’re going to put it into the Constitution.

    If there are any unintended consequences to Marsy’s Law, it will have to go back to a vote of the people to be fixed. And at the end of the day, it doesn’t change how a DA will act. Marsy’s Law doesn’t require a DA to do anything unless the victim asked for it. … It was written by DAs in large part. And it doesn’t require them to do anything unless asked for it. So an active and engaged DA is going to do what an active and engaged DA already does. And a lazy and disengaged DA will do what a lazy and disengaged DA already does."

  18. #68

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    It seems teachers, administrators, and school boards see no benefit from SQ 801.
    https://www.stwnewspress.com/opinion...22d0ccf8a.html

  19. #69

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Any time it's a question of amending the state Constitution, you should always vote no if there is ANY doubt about what you're voting for.

    Also, every state I've been in that had Walmart stores with vision centers (15 states so far personally) literally were named "Walmart Optical". They're similar to the pharmacies. They will have a licensed optometrist or optician just as the pharmacy has a licensed pharmacist.

  20. #70

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    793 - No
    794 - No
    798 - Yes
    800 - Yes
    801 - Yes

  21. #71

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    I’m yes on the eye docs, and no on everything else.

  22. #72

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    On 793, I'm sort of leaning no. Not because I disagree with the concept (I'd also like to see NPs operate independently). However, I'm not sure about adding it to the constitution. It seems a little weird and adding to an already cumbersome document.

  23. #73

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    the biggest thing i have against 794 is the following addition to the existing section:

    "This section does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court."

    if the government or any of its agents don't follow this section, then victim's who are damaged as a result of that failure will, by law, be excluded from claiming any damages. it seems to me that this update to our existing laws gives victims fewer rights than it did before.

    source: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Sta...mendment_(2018)

  24. Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    I hope 801 fails miserably. I can't even wrap my head around how it got on the ticket in the first place. Just another example of throwing more money at the problem instead of fixing from within.

  25. #75

    Default Re: Oklahoma State Questions

    Quote Originally Posted by jerrywall View Post
    On 793, I'm sort of leaning no. Not because I disagree with the concept (I'd also like to see NPs operate independently). However, I'm not sure about adding it to the constitution. It seems a little weird and adding to an already cumbersome document.
    Yikes, no thanks. And its not like you are getting a discount by seeing an NP over the doctor, you just get a significantly less experienced and trained person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Martin View Post
    the biggest thing i have against 794 is the following addition to the existing section:

    "This section does not create any cause of action for compensation or damages against the state, any political subdivision of the state, any officer, employee or agent of the state or of any of its political subdivisions, or any officer or employee of the court."

    if the government or any of its agents don't follow this section, then victim's who are damaged as a result of that failure will, by law, be excluded from claiming any damages. it seems to me that this update to our existing laws gives victims fewer rights than it did before.

    source: https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_Sta...mendment_(2018)
    Kind of the reasons I think Im voting no. This is a feel good law that really does nothing. You still have to have the overextended DA or whoever keep track of these hearings and victims and then alert the victims. I doubt this will be a high priority for most of those folks.

    There is no good reason really to say no to the optometry thing. Worried about a walmart optometrist? Just keep going to your regular optometrist and everything stays the same. But for those who only need eyeglasses and want a good price, this should be an option. Its only not an option to begin with because of unnecessary government regulations

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO