They don't want to set up Rules. That is too hard and would take up too much time. It is so much easier for them to just try to shut the whole system down. IMO, America has a whole he!! of a lot more problems than telemedicine.

Why don't they do something about the fact that people can't afford to buy gas anymore. Once again, they would have to throw some effort into that. Same thing with cigarettes and alcohol. Plenty of people are addicted and bunches of them are dying, but those industries bring in big revenue. They would never consider regulating how much beer a person could buy a month or how many pacts of cigarettes "Miss, I'm sorry but the state tobacco database shows that you bought 2 packs of cigarettes yesterday, you can't buy anymore for three days, and then only if you talk to a counselor first". Could you see all the people lined up trying to buy alcohol the same way we now have to line up at the pharmacy to buy Sudifed?

I just sent an email to another congressman in my State about S980; unfortunately, most of the congressmen on the the committees where the Bill now sits ready for review, and who ultimately, send on the Bill for a vote in the House, will not take emails from non-constituents. The Senate sent it on with an unanimous consent, so obviously, we need to concentrate on Congress now. The following congressmen should be emailed, if you are in their State, please email them and urge them to vote NO on S980:

1. Rep. Dingell Minn
2. Rep. Waxman Calif
3. Rep. Boucher
4. Rep. Markey
5. Rep. Gordon
6. Rep. Pallone
7. Rep. Barton
8. Rep. Stupak
9. Rep. Harman
10. Rep. Schakowsky

Hi 1zlu -

It is not inevitable that it will become law and does not have to happen if enough people get engaged to stop it. The bill cleared the Senate but it still has to pass the House, where it has been referred to two Committees of jurisdiction: Energy and Commerce and Judiciary. It will be great if people can contact their representative to oppose the bill when and if it goes to thje House floor -- but important also that the Chairmen of the two Committees be persuaded NOT to release the bill to bypass the Committee process and go directly to the House floor on unanimous consent (UC). UC is SUPPOSED TO BE ONLY FOR BILLS THAT ARE NON-CONTROVERSIAL. The bill can at least be slowed down -- and possibly either killed or "improved" by getting the message across that this bill is controversial with some major unresolved concerns on the part of key constituencies. With enough delay, it is also possible to run out the clock if the bill is not released or acted on by the two committees before Congress' current target adjournment date of September 22 (lawmakers will also be gone campaigning -- and attending the DNC or RNC conventions -- August recess).

There is a new thread on contacting your member of Congress about this legislation. It includes talking points. Hope that helps.

Best, - HG

P.S. Here are links to membership lists of the two House Committees of jurisdiction where S. 980 has been referred.
If your Representative sits on either of these committees, your voice can be especially influential!!!!

House Judiciary Committee:
http://judiciary.house.gov/CommitteeMembership.aspx

House Energy and Commerce Committee:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/

Best, - HG

Thanks for links hillgirl, unfortunately my rep doesn't sit on either committee, and my Congressman is a former Sheriff to boot, but I sent an email to him anyway. What we need to do now is scream and scream loud. For the last 3 years I've posted on DB a suggestion that the OCS form an association (like many other competitive industries have done), and hire a lobbyist to make their case in Washington, but obviously, I am not "queen of the universe," and I have never been able to command them to take this sensible, pre-emptive step, LOL.

Unfortunately, if you read the entire bill, it will end the OCS business as we know it. It defines a valid relationship as a "face to face" unless the acting doctor is specifically working with a patient on behalf of the PCP. This means in comminication with and upon specific request of the PCP. Some wonder then how will certain government programs continue to operate, such as VA mail order and medicare/medicaid mail order ... well, if you read the bill in its entirety there are exemptions for doctor networks over 100 strong, especially those working in cooperation with government programs and certain programs involving insurance networks and such. We need to do what we can as far as making our voices heard when it comes to services offering legal patient services that do adhere to the federal guidelines. They are using this kids face as propaganda to demonize a part of the industry that has been long extinct, but yet take this horrible facet that once existed and group all services in with their unscrupulous behavior. This bill is a serious threat to ending access to a wonderful, legitimate, and beneficial medical service to hundreds of thousands of patients.

You said perfectly, thanks for explaining the bill, I think everyone needs to see how this bill works and what it is about to do.

One hope is that this bill will not make it through the next hurdles in time to pass to the President for his signature. It still has to make it out of committee in the House, be read, lay on the table, have a second reading, be debated, have a third and final reading, pass the House, then go to a Senate-House Conference Committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions, then the Senate and House must each pass the Conference Report, and then it must be transmitted to the President for his signature or veto (not likely to be vetoed). If all of this does not get done by the time Congress adjourns in December, then the bill is dead as legislation may not pass from one Congress to the next (it can carry over from the first to the second session, but NOT from one Congress to the next one). Delay seems to be the best hope for this bill to be killed at this point.

Except that Bush has urged Congress to "fast track" this Legislation in concert with the "anti-presciption" drug ads currently running that are aimed at teenagers. This is the type of "feel good" Bill that might just make it out of committee and Pass the House with little or no comment, afterall, what career Politican wants to be seen as questioning legislation that supposedly "protects" children, and keeps them from buying evil drugs over the internet with a "click of a mouse."

In addition to the dramatic impact on online pharmacies, it appears that message boards such as this one may experience legal difficulties if S.980 passes. Below are several quotes from the text of amendments to S.980 contained in S.AMDT.4383 and found on page S:2304

Amendment SA 4383 was agreed to in Senate by Unanimous Consent on 4/1/08

Status of S.980 (THOMAS)








Z

It took over a year in the Senate for it to be voted on and passed there. There is a decent chance that if we ALL contact our reps we may get the bill hung up for a while. Our only hope for now is getting it delayed.

Good point nite. I wasn't aware how long it took to clear the Senate. That could be good news. We'll see.

Here is how the proposed bill has progressed thus far:

Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]show cosponsors (5)
Cosponsors [as of 2008-04-03]
Sen. Joseph Biden [D-DE]
Sen. Norm Coleman [R-MN]
Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]

Status: Introduced Mar 23, 2007
Scheduled for Debate Mar 12, 2008
Amendments (1 proposed) [details]
Passed Senate [details] Apr 1, 2008
Voted on in House -
Signed by President -

This bill has been passed in the Senate. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the House. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the House, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Apr 2, 2008]
Last Action: Apr 2, 2008: Referred to House Judiciary
Show All Related Votes

Votes on Passage
Apr 1, 2008: This bill passed in the Senate by Unanimous Consent. A record of each representative's position was not kept.

My apologies for providing a non-working link, this one should work better:

Status of S.980 (THOMAS)

Z

Agreed. Can you imagine a store telling someone they had sold them their quota of beer for the week? THEN there would be a revolution!!!!!

The sad part about this situation is that this bill has essentially been introduced to the senate twice before as the 2006 online consumer protection act, then again as the 2007 bill without the Ryan Haight name attached to the bill, both times the bill never made it past the senates judiciary committee. Both times the bill was wiped from the books as the senate sessions ended respectively. This time the F-ing this has been fast tracked unlike any other time before, and with national media attention, and even public service announcements with kids digging through their parents prescription pills and such....WELL, I WOULD SAY WITHIN 9-12 MONTHS THIS BILL WILL BE ENACTED SUCCESSFULLY.
This is just my opinion, but I have watched the progression of every single bill that has been introduced regarding online clinics and pharmaceuticals and nothing comes close to the manner in which this bill has been expedited.

If it is going to pass it will have to do so by December. Since, I believe, the new congress goes into effect in January. Plus this is an election year, so maybe it will get put on the backburner. I know that it is now before the House Judicary Committee which is very tied up right now with Former AL Gov. Don Siegelman.

So correct, but a bill can be passed, and not stalled out of session, then revisited for any riders or ammendments made to the bill for final drafting ... should seem to be be out of sequence but that can legally happen...what a crock if you ask me.

It can also be passed on an emergency basis, as in a threat to the public health, much like state legislation has (ie. arkansas' definition of a valid dr./patient relationship in '07) and then would come up for a vote in another session to make the legislation permanent.

Don't forget that Bush has made it his "special" mission to get this legislation in place.

Ain't 'bipartisan' stuff grand? The only time they can agree on something is when it screws the voters

and keep money in their pockets, ie - only allowing meds prescribed by programs that they are involved with

Actually there is not a federal legislative mechanism for doing that. The only way that would work, which is a possibility, is for the President to issue an executive order, which would stand in limite' until legislation is passed.

that is exactly why I related it to "emergency legislation" that states can enact, because it works similarly, under different verbage, but with the same result...and if he wants to make a statement with this issue as he has made known he does, then this is not out of the question at all, and most definitely would be done under the guise of "an immenent threat to the public of the United States". Thanks for the clearification though, as it helps everyone understand certain process es that our government utilizes.

I am trying my best to remember my high school government class. I am having trouble recalling the chapter on "how a bill becomes a law." It is so confusing. I have read thru the bill several times and there are still portions of it I don't understand. I have written my reps so anyone who has any other suggestions of what to do, please let me know.

You will find a moderately detailed explanation of the process here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/laws_made.html

Z

and Of course one of the more alarming facets of this Bill is that it seems to suggest that our board, Drugbuyers, will become ILLEGAL if it passes. We must keep the pressure on to get this Bill off the table somehow. Does anyone know of an organized group like Chronic Pain Patients that takes a negative stance on this Bill?

The unfortunate truth is, this bill *will* pass and *will* be signed into law. This is a 100% fact, and there is no stopping it. Most of the momentum for the bill was gained when the official titled was changed from "Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2007" to its current title, thus making the politicians feel obligated to support it, lest they seem unconcerned about the 'plight of our children'.

The unavoidable fact: when (not if) this bill passes, it is the end of telemedicine; not only as we know it, but period.

Sorry to be the barer of bad news, but everything I've just said I have on very good authority.

What a long strange trip it's been....

Which of those do you think would affect our site and what would have to change?