Oklahoma State Questions

[Zuplar]

State Question 793 – a citizen-initiated referendum to allow optometrists and opticians to operate in retail establishments;

I'm against this. We have very affordable vision care in Oklahoma. I don't think it's good policy to let retailers dictate medical care. It is good for Oklahomans to have full and thorough eye examinations. It is in all of our interest that they do as ultimately, the public is going to end up paying for anyone who loses their vision due preventable disease.

You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

[stile99]

You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

It's as fictional as the whole "your dog's vet will be able to prescribe medical marijuana" thing. No retailer will be dictating medical care, obviously. Nobody is suggesting the greeter at Walmart is going to glance at you and write your eye prescription. Eye exams will be done exactly as they are now, by a qualified medical professional. You'll simply have more places where you can buy your frames/lenses. Go to any optometrist you want, go to any store you want. As seen above, even the people opposed admit that it will still be a qualified, licensed optometrist doing the exam.

Or, you know, maybe they're right and everyone will go blind if we're actually dumb enough to allow this. Just like everyone in the other states besides Rhode Island, Delaware, and Oklahoma did.

[foodiefan]

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

[Midtowner]

You know this seems to be the only argument I’ve seen against this. And I just don’t understand it. It’s not like they aren’t going to hire qualified optometrists. It helps add choice. There are so many out there that don’t go because they can’t afford to and this may allow them an opportunity to get glasses instead of just picking up a pair of readers to try and get by. At the very least they can get something better than that. Just my thoughts.

It's about letting retailers rather than qualified medical professionals dictate standards of care. If you go to an optometrist, they're going to test for glaucoma and a myriad of other conditions. The vast majority of people will not go for those full exams if something more convenient and less expensive is available. That impacts public health--and when the result is blindness, the public picks up the tab for that.

[Midtowner]

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

Read the Oklahoma Constitution sometime. It covers a lot of seemingly random subjects like the flash point of kerosene--a fact often used by some to justify having a Constitutional Convention, which is technically required and long overdue according to the Constitution. I think we're all too afraid to have a Constitution because our legislators are mostly young and inexperienced and we'd end up with something largely written by lobbyists.

[Bunty]

Re: 793. . .the question I cannot seem to get an answer to is why does this need to be a constitutional amendment? Not against it in principal. . just don't understand/see the need for a constitutional amendment.

The desire to put a new law or regulation in the state constitution comes from the belief that it makes it much harder for the legislature to mess with. If, instead, it's put in the statutes, the legislature can substantially change it or do as much as throw the whole thing out. However, I bet a lot of people were surprised that the governor and legislative leaders changed their minds and did not go with a special session to gut SQ788. In 2019, it will be interesting to see, if they remain faithful to what is prescribed in SQ788. If they do, it will encourage supporters to legalize rec marijuana to go with a statute change for the next petition, while having a considerably lower required number of signatures.

[Zuplar]

It's about letting retailers rather than qualified medical professionals dictate standards of care. If you go to an optometrist, they're going to test for glaucoma and a myriad of other conditions. The vast majority of people will not go for those full exams if something more convenient and less expensive is available. That impacts public health--and when the result is blindness, the public picks up the tab for that.

Sorry I just don’t buy that argument. The majority of people that end up going this route don’t do anything now. Sure there will be some that switch. Those that have major eye issues will continue going where they do. I feel like this fits where I am. I have perfect vision. I went 8 years ago because I thought my vision was slipping. I got told my vision was perfect, no need to come back for a decade unless I’m having issues. Ended up costing me $100 or more cause no vision insurance. Now had Walmart offered a similar test for half that I absolutely would have gone that route. I could find out if it was just eye strain (which it was, some cheap computer glasses on amazon helped a ton) or if there is something more serious. To me that would have been much better option for me. Someone like my wife who is nearly blind without contacts would never be satisfied going to Walmart, but then again we’d have options.

[jedicurt]

i just don't understand why everyone is so apathetic about 798. our big issue over the past 8 years was partisanship in the state government... so we just want to make that easier to happen???? i'm really at a loss

[Midtowner]

i just don't understand why everyone is so apathetic about 798. our big issue over the past 8 years was partisanship in the state government... so we just want to make that easier to happen???? i'm really at a loss

Now tell the truth... can you name all three candidates for Lt. Governor?

That's why.

[jedicurt]

Now tell the truth... can you name all three candidates for Lt. Governor?

That's why.

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?

[baralheia]

^

Jedicurt echos my sentiments on 798 exactly. I believe Oklahoma voters stand to lose with that SQ.

[Bill Robertson]

I’m actually trying to decide what I think of 798. And maybe learn something. I’m leaning toward yes but I want to ask another question similar to Midtowner’s. Can anyone name something that each of the last three L.G.s did that made a notable difference in the life of an average citizen like me. A law they got pushed through or one they got blocked, a change in some state agency’s operation, etc. ? I might just not pay enough attention but I don’t see that our L.G.s do much.

[jedicurt]

I’m actually trying to decide what I think of 798. And maybe learn something. I’m leaning toward yes but I want to ask another question similar to Midtowner’s. Can anyone name something that each of the last three L.G.s did that made a notable difference in the life of an average citizen like me. A law they got pushed through or one they got blocked, a change in some state agency’s operation, etc. ? I might just not pay enough attention but I don’t see that our L.G.s do much.

the Lt. Governor is on the Cabinet of the Governor (sometimes with a more important and contributory role than other times). while it is difficult to point to a single thing and say "hey the LTG did that". it is a way to for the Oklahoma voters to be able to help give their input into every decision the Governor makes... by allowing us, the citizens to have direct input into the policies of the Governor. the LT Governor in Oklahoma also sits on the following boards of commissions (by statute and the Constitution) and thus gives the citizens of Oklahoma the ability to vote on this member who is active in making changes to the state... these commissions and position are as follows

Tourism and Recreation Commission - Chair
Film Office Advisory Commission - Chair
Oklahoma State Board of Equalization - Vice-Chair
School Land Commission - Vice-Chair
Oklahoma Linked Deposit Board - Vice-Chair
State Insurance Fund - Member
Archives and Records Commission - Member
Oklahoma Capitol Complex Centennial Commission - Member
Capital Improvements Authority - Member
Native American Cultural & Education Authority - Member

all of these Commissions have done things that have affected average citizens like you... and we get to vote on a board member currently for them... and in some cases that board member is the chair or vice-chair.

in many cases when the Governor and lt governor are of the same party, they are appointed with an official role within the cabinet (just as with mary fallin under Keating as the Small Business Advocate, as well as Todd Lamb in the same role under Fallin)

so can i point to a single thing and say the LT Governor did that? no... but i am certain the Capital Improvement Authority and perhaps several of the other commissions that the LT Governor sits on has affected you, either positively or negatively.

[Bill Robertson]

Thanks jedicurt. That does give me something to consider.

[Bunty]

One way Republicans could make government smaller would be to get the people to vote on a state question that would abolish the Lt. governor and have the leader of the state senate step in as governor when needed.

[d-usa]

Is Walmart going to replace our Oklahoma Board of Optometry? Are they going to be in charge of licensing Optometrists and in charge of writing the rules and regulations over their practice that protects consumers

[Midtowner]

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

[d-usa]

So they can rewrite the minimum standards set by the board of optometry?

The same way CVS and Walgreens regulate Nursing practice in our state?

[jedicurt]

One way Republicans could make government smaller would be to get the people to vote on a state question that would abolish the Lt. governor and have the leader of the state senate step in as governor when needed.

except that due to the Lt Governor being specifically listed via statute and in the constitution makes this virtually impossible and not likely to ever happen...

[TheTravellers]

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

Really? Got a cite for that? I checked out what I think is the text of the SQ and didn't see anything at all in there about defining or redefining examinations, had mainly to do with locations and entrances, etc....

[d-usa]

Optometrist can decide what services they offer, same as everywhere else. The State Board will continue to be able to set minimum standards, same as they currently are doing, and optometrists everywhere will have to follow them.

[Bunty]

I see about as may ads to vote yes for Marcy's Law, SQ794, as I do for SQ793. So who stands to make money if SQ794 passes? Lawyers? Anyway, the cons against SQ794 only make me a weak yes for it.

[foodiefan]

Read the Oklahoma Constitution sometime. It covers a lot of seemingly random subjects like the flash point of kerosene--a fact often used by some to justify having a Constitutional Convention, which is technically required and long overdue according to the Constitution. I think we're all too afraid to have a Constitution because our legislators are mostly young and inexperienced and we'd end up with something largely written by lobbyists.

and. .

The desire to put a new law or regulation in the state constitution comes from the belief that it makes it much harder for the legislature to mess with. If, instead, it's put in the statutes, the legislature can substantially change it or do as much as throw the whole thing out. However, I bet a lot of people were surprised that the governor and legislative leaders changed their minds and did not go with a special session to gut SQ788. In 2019, it will be interesting to see, if they remain faithful to what is prescribed in SQ788. If they do, it will encourage supporters to legalize rec marijuana to go with a statute change for the next petition, while having a considerably lower required number of signatures.

thanks!! what I surmised and that makes me a "no". I see absolutely no reason to throw more frass in the stew (constitution)!!

[Midtowner]

I see about as may ads to vote yes for Marcy's Law, SQ794, as I do for SQ793. So who stands to make money if SQ794 passes? Lawyers? Anyway, the cons against SQ794 only make me a weak yes for it.

Marcy's Law, while it sounds okay, imposes a lot more requirements on our prosecutors without adding one dime to their funding. I'd be fine with something more narrowly tailored to cover victims of sex crimes or severely violent crimes. This will have the legislator scrambling to fund it and they will probably go to 'ol reliable--increasing fines, fees and costs.

[TheTravellers]

Retailers will be able to define what an examination looks like.

Still haven't heard an answer about this from you (or anybody), can you point me to where the SQ says that?