massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
The Massage Therapy Alliance of America - A New Alliance For Therapists!
We are so excited for Massage Therapists!!! But, instead of re-explaining it here, go to the source at http://www.mtaamassage.org
Some of the debate that will take place on this topic will be heated. If opposing sides discussing issues is not your cup of tea, just visit the website. FYI!
Views: 521
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Ravensara,
I have read some of your posts. I never thought that you would draw wisdom from a fictional character in The Princess Bride to tell me that I don't know what a word means. Luckily for me, you didn't use Señor Montoya's other famous quote.
Obviously there would be no conflict of interest if the basis of your argument ("MTs advocating for more responsibility and better education for themselves") were correct. The problem is, that's not what we have here.
What we have is: book authors, researchers, teachers, online education consulants, accreditation consultants and others who earn a good amount of money and benefits from non-MT work, selling us on the idea that:
- we should only do x type of work,
- we should all be degreed in MT or otherwise we are not "competent",
- being a good massage therapist is a function of longer initial schooling instead of shorter initial schooling and CE,
- that we should all be making our money primarily from insurance.
The people proposing these changes would be the first to benefit from their suggestions and that is where the conflict of interest is. I never said that these people have an intention to deceive us, I spoke of a conflict of interest. What's worse, nobody has shown that massage therapists will also receive a benefit from these proposed changes.
I have asked repeatedly for evidence that the changes being suggested by Bodhi and some others will in fact improve the income of massage therapists, the profession, and the public, and how. I have also asked repeatedly why some here think 'accreditation' is better, especially in light of the fiasco of accredited "for profit schools" being investigated by the government. There are no answers coming forth, just more of the same regurgitations.
You say "On the other hand, a direct co-location linkage between a non-profit organization, and a for-profit event owned by the same person who organized the non-profit, " Mike explained clearly that he is setting this up and that he will not be part of it. This is not the first time something like this happens. Do I need to remind you of AMTA's and COMTA's cohabitation? or FSMTB growing out of ABMP members' frustration with NCB?
Finally you say "Meanwhile, you have implied that MTs acting in good faith to address problems they perceive in massage therapy have a conflict of interest. That is a serious accusation. There are only two choices here..."
Why aren't you applying this same statement to the situation in this thread, as Mike could very well be an "MT acting in good faith to address problems he perceives in massage therapy."? It is you who and others who are demonizing him here who should apologize to him.
As far as I am concerned, until you show me - and I mean show me with details, don't just use loaded words and fictional characters- how accreditation, longer programs, and a move toward rehabilitative massage will benefit MTs and not solely those who are propose them, I will stand by my "conflict of interest" statement.
Emmanuel
Ravensara Travillian said:"Especially when you consider the proposals of certain people to change the core of what MTs do (talk about conflict of interest!)"
To quote the great Señor Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Where is the conflict of interest in MTs advocating for more responsibility and better education for themselves?
Can you show us a direct connection where MTs advocating for professionalism gives someone an immediate opportunity to gain financially? A hypothetical increase in income somewhere someday is not a conflict of interest; this is Professional Ethics 101 material.
On the other hand, a direct co-location linkage between a non-profit organization, and a for-profit event owned by the same person who organized the non-profit, and who is conducting operations in absolute secrecy, is rife with opportunities for direct financial and influence conflict of interest.
No one is saying that Mike is definitely acting with impropriety. While the opportunity for conflict of interest is clearly and obviously there, no one has said he is actually profiting from MTAA. It is the continued refusal to conduct operations transparently, and to make a clear distinction between the festival and the organization, that has people rightly asking questions about what is being done to address the potential for conflict of interest here. Dismissing them as having "trust issues" and claiming their motivations are impure, is not how an organization conducts itself professionally.
Meanwhile, you have implied that MTs acting in good faith to address problems they perceive in massage therapy have a conflict of interest. That is a serious accusation.
There are only two choices here: either you know what "conflict of interest" means, or you don't.
If you don't know what it means, you should apologize for saying such a grossly inappropriate thing inadvertently.
If you do know what it means, then you know that what you call a conflict of interest really isn't, and you are simply arguing in bad faith.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Lisa,
You wonder why I won't subject their names to you?
The Alliance of Teachers that just formed in Utah was formed by the incorporators. It usually is done this way, Lisa. I don't know where you get this idea of conflict. Any massage therapist that is a member can run for office, anytime we want, including me. This is my personal decision, not to run.
Rick Rosen, thought up, incorporated and is the ED for the Alliance. His wife is in charge of their learning programs. Someone has to do the work. I am trying to show good faith is all, by not running. I could have total control. I chose to give it to the therapists. But if I wanted to run or will in the future, that is my concern and it is legal. You are trying to use a false pretense that there is a conflict of interest because I own a for-profit business? You are not aware of how incorporations are done.
Have a good day!
Lisa said:There is no way, I gain. If people are upset, because others may attend the Festival and attend classes to help their education, again that is a side benefit for both.
Where the perceived conflict of interest is, is that in order to vote one has to attend the festival. It is HIGHLY unlikely that one will travel out of their state to JUST vote. And, the perceived conflict is that IF one DID go JUST to vote...(marketing 101 tells us) they will end up staying, and register and go to the festival. So the festival, ergo, YOU, makes more money than you would have, should the voting have been also offered through email.
I would also like to ask, since we are not being told who these veteran therapists/teachers are that are helping you with the by-laws, are THEY allowed to run for BOD? You said you will not be. However, this elite group that YOU'VE formed to speak on OUR behalf, should not be able to run either since it would be a conflict of interest in that they are writing the by-laws. Their participation in the BOD would be inappropriate since they are in it from ground up. However, since you will not tell us who they are, how then are we to know just how "fair" this election is?
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
An American citizen with homes and work in both the US and the UK is not eligible for membership in your organization? What an oddly specific policy.
And do you at least see the point that if you were the founder of any of those organizations you named that are co-located with the festival, then the comparison would be more on-point wrt the perception of conflict of interest?
Mike Hinkle said:Hi Ravensara,
I started not to answer this when I saw you too were not really vested in this conversation as you are not eligible to even be a member living outside the US in Europe. But you may move back, so I will take the time to answer your questions.
As a way for me to show support to the Alliance, the Festival will offer a free meeting room to the Alliance for their annual meeting each year. But, the BOD of the Alliance will have sole control over wether or not they accept that. The BOD will determine where and when their annual meetings will be held.
We have made this same offer many times to other organizations since 2009. In 2009, the TX AMTA chapter and the Texas Association of Massage Therapists both held their annual meetings at the Festival. Both organizations are non-profit. This proximity helped both organizations begin to work together for what they wanted to see happen in Texas.In 2011, the Nurse Association of Massage Therapists will hold their annual meeting at the Festival. In 2012, the NV AMTA chapter is talking about holding some events at Festival. This has helped those chapters save money by the Festival providing the chapter with a meeting room and the availability of CEs without the chapter needing to spend their money for their annual meetings. The Festival works for and does benefit the massage community. If the intent was to hurt other associations, we would not be extending our hand to help.
I am not creating an association to be in "competition" with AMTA and ABMP. I am creating an Alliance to assist all of massage. The Alliance will be an alternative voice for those who may be a member of either, both or neither of these associations. The only requirement for membership is that members are working within the legal parameters set by the state in which they practice. Period.
I will NOT run for any office on the BOD. I incorporated the Alliance, but will be turning it over completely to the new BOD upon their election. In addition, I am giving the Massage Therapy Hall of Fame to the new Alliance after the initial election of officers. From then on, it will be up to the Alliance to nominate and induct members into the Hall of Fame.
Membership, up until the BOD decides otherwise, is FREE. This was done specifically so that more therapists can have a voice in the initial formation and to prevent the appearance that I personally will be profiting from the start up of the Alliance. Any costs incurred in the formation and up to the election itself, has been and will be absorbed by me. I will NOT be asking the newly elected BOD to reimburse me for any expenses I have incurred.
Solicitation of donations for the Alliance will be up to the BOD. The Alliance is set up as a Business League, which is defined on the IRS site at http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html and the BOD will proceed from there.
Have a great day over there!Mike
Ravensara Travillian said:Will the festival and the organization continue to be linked after memberships become paid? Do you have a transition plan to ensure that potential conflicts of interest, not only now, but in the future as well, between a non-profit organization and a for-profit event are addressed?
Will you be soliciting donations for the organizations from MTs in the future? I trust you will be actively making clear to potential members and donors the distinction between non-profit and tax-deductible, since if this is just starting up now, you will not have had time to follow the IRS process, and thus cannot yet have achieved tax-exempt status.
Are you planning to apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status, so that later on, people can make donations to your organization and deduct it from their taxes? Because if so, we are doing you a huge favor, whether you realize it or not.
If you think the questions from potential members here are hard, you will be in for quite a shock when you apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status. Compared to their process, the questions here are softballs. And they will take a cold, hard, jaded look at the linkage between a non-profit organization and a for-profit event. You want to make sure that you are not only cleaner than Caesar's wife, but also that you can prove you are, if you want to take your organization to that step.
Of course, if you're not planning to apply for tax-exempt status, that's fine, too, as long as you make potential donors aware they cannot deduct it from their taxes. You don't want to get any donors in trouble with the IRS.
Mike Hinkle said:
Thank you for explaining that. There is no finances in action, in anyway until after we have already, left the Festival and a meeting of the BOD and an amount for membership is created. There is no way, I gain. If people are upset, because others may attend the Festival and attend classes to help their education, again that is a side benefit for both. But I have already been told my list of reasons for this is weak right so it will be minimal, right?
There is no perfect date, place or situation for all to be happy. All I can do is have the election and then let the Alliance carry on. Is there opportunity to take advantage of folks? I am sure one could find a way. There is no way to close every avenue or make you believe whatever will do that. All I can do is what I am and that's it.
Ravensara Travillian said:"Especially when you consider the proposals of certain people to change the core of what MTs do (talk about conflict of interest!)"
To quote the great Señor Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Where is the conflict of interest in MTs advocating for more responsibility and better education for themselves?
Can you show us a direct connection where MTs advocating for professionalism gives someone an immediate opportunity to gain financially? A hypothetical increase in income somewhere someday is not a conflict of interest; this is Professional Ethics 101 material.
On the other hand, a direct co-location linkage between a non-profit organization, and a for-profit event owned by the same person who organized the non-profit, and who is conducting operations in absolute secrecy, is rife with opportunities for direct financial and influence conflict of interest.
No one is saying that Mike is definitely acting with impropriety. While the opportunity for conflict of interest is clearly and obviously there, no one has said he is actually profiting from MTAA. It is the continued refusal to conduct operations transparently, and to make a clear distinction between the festival and the organization, that has people rightly asking questions about what is being done to address the potential for conflict of interest here. Dismissing them as having "trust issues" and claiming their motivations are impure, is not how an organization conducts itself professionally.
Meanwhile, you have implied that MTs acting in good faith to address problems they perceive in massage therapy have a conflict of interest. That is a serious accusation.
There are only two choices here: either you know what "conflict of interest" means, or you don't.
If you don't know what it means, you should apologize for saying such a grossly inappropriate thing inadvertently.
If you do know what it means, then you know that what you call a conflict of interest really isn't, and you are simply arguing in bad faith.
-
-
I saw only your Face Book page. Yes, you are eligible and like I said you may move.
Yes, I see the point. I also see that I will not take advantage of any aspect of this endeavor. I don't know what I've done to warrant this as I have always had a successful program and now this. I am not going to hand this off to anyone else. It is my creation and it will unfold as I decide to share and as the situations develop. There are so many things that happen behind the scenes that determine much.
I agree someone in my position could take advantage. I won't.
Ravensara Travillian said:An American citizen with homes and work in both the US and the UK is not eligible for membership in your organization? What an oddly specific policy.
And do you at least see the point that if you were the founder of any of those organizations you named that are co-located with the festival, then the comparison would be more on-point wrt the perception of conflict of interest?
Mike Hinkle said:Hi Ravensara,
I started not to answer this when I saw you too were not really vested in this conversation as you are not eligible to even be a member living outside the US in Europe. But you may move back, so I will take the time to answer your questions.
As a way for me to show support to the Alliance, the Festival will offer a free meeting room to the Alliance for their annual meeting each year. But, the BOD of the Alliance will have sole control over wether or not they accept that. The BOD will determine where and when their annual meetings will be held.
We have made this same offer many times to other organizations since 2009. In 2009, the TX AMTA chapter and the Texas Association of Massage Therapists both held their annual meetings at the Festival. Both organizations are non-profit. This proximity helped both organizations begin to work together for what they wanted to see happen in Texas.In 2011, the Nurse Association of Massage Therapists will hold their annual meeting at the Festival. In 2012, the NV AMTA chapter is talking about holding some events at Festival. This has helped those chapters save money by the Festival providing the chapter with a meeting room and the availability of CEs without the chapter needing to spend their money for their annual meetings. The Festival works for and does benefit the massage community. If the intent was to hurt other associations, we would not be extending our hand to help.
I am not creating an association to be in "competition" with AMTA and ABMP. I am creating an Alliance to assist all of massage. The Alliance will be an alternative voice for those who may be a member of either, both or neither of these associations. The only requirement for membership is that members are working within the legal parameters set by the state in which they practice. Period.
I will NOT run for any office on the BOD. I incorporated the Alliance, but will be turning it over completely to the new BOD upon their election. In addition, I am giving the Massage Therapy Hall of Fame to the new Alliance after the initial election of officers. From then on, it will be up to the Alliance to nominate and induct members into the Hall of Fame.
Membership, up until the BOD decides otherwise, is FREE. This was done specifically so that more therapists can have a voice in the initial formation and to prevent the appearance that I personally will be profiting from the start up of the Alliance. Any costs incurred in the formation and up to the election itself, has been and will be absorbed by me. I will NOT be asking the newly elected BOD to reimburse me for any expenses I have incurred.
Solicitation of donations for the Alliance will be up to the BOD. The Alliance is set up as a Business League, which is defined on the IRS site at http://www.irs.gov/charities/nonprofits/article/0,,id=96107,00.html and the BOD will proceed from there.
Have a great day over there!Mike
Ravensara Travillian said:Will the festival and the organization continue to be linked after memberships become paid? Do you have a transition plan to ensure that potential conflicts of interest, not only now, but in the future as well, between a non-profit organization and a for-profit event are addressed?
Will you be soliciting donations for the organizations from MTs in the future? I trust you will be actively making clear to potential members and donors the distinction between non-profit and tax-deductible, since if this is just starting up now, you will not have had time to follow the IRS process, and thus cannot yet have achieved tax-exempt status.
Are you planning to apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status, so that later on, people can make donations to your organization and deduct it from their taxes? Because if so, we are doing you a huge favor, whether you realize it or not.
If you think the questions from potential members here are hard, you will be in for quite a shock when you apply to the IRS for tax-exempt status. Compared to their process, the questions here are softballs. And they will take a cold, hard, jaded look at the linkage between a non-profit organization and a for-profit event. You want to make sure that you are not only cleaner than Caesar's wife, but also that you can prove you are, if you want to take your organization to that step.
Of course, if you're not planning to apply for tax-exempt status, that's fine, too, as long as you make potential donors aware they cannot deduct it from their taxes. You don't want to get any donors in trouble with the IRS.
Mike Hinkle said:
Thank you for explaining that. There is no finances in action, in anyway until after we have already, left the Festival and a meeting of the BOD and an amount for membership is created. There is no way, I gain. If people are upset, because others may attend the Festival and attend classes to help their education, again that is a side benefit for both. But I have already been told my list of reasons for this is weak right so it will be minimal, right?
There is no perfect date, place or situation for all to be happy. All I can do is have the election and then let the Alliance carry on. Is there opportunity to take advantage of folks? I am sure one could find a way. There is no way to close every avenue or make you believe whatever will do that. All I can do is what I am and that's it.
Ravensara Travillian said:"Especially when you consider the proposals of certain people to change the core of what MTs do (talk about conflict of interest!)"
To quote the great Señor Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Where is the conflict of interest in MTs advocating for more responsibility and better education for themselves?
Can you show us a direct connection where MTs advocating for professionalism gives someone an immediate opportunity to gain financially? A hypothetical increase in income somewhere someday is not a conflict of interest; this is Professional Ethics 101 material.
On the other hand, a direct co-location linkage between a non-profit organization, and a for-profit event owned by the same person who organized the non-profit, and who is conducting operations in absolute secrecy, is rife with opportunities for direct financial and influence conflict of interest.
No one is saying that Mike is definitely acting with impropriety. While the opportunity for conflict of interest is clearly and obviously there, no one has said he is actually profiting from MTAA. It is the continued refusal to conduct operations transparently, and to make a clear distinction between the festival and the organization, that has people rightly asking questions about what is being done to address the potential for conflict of interest here. Dismissing them as having "trust issues" and claiming their motivations are impure, is not how an organization conducts itself professionally.
Meanwhile, you have implied that MTs acting in good faith to address problems they perceive in massage therapy have a conflict of interest. That is a serious accusation.
There are only two choices here: either you know what "conflict of interest" means, or you don't.
If you don't know what it means, you should apologize for saying such a grossly inappropriate thing inadvertently.
If you do know what it means, then you know that what you call a conflict of interest really isn't, and you are simply arguing in bad faith.
-
Permalink Reply by Julie Onofrio on
-
So where is your research Mike - all of the statistics that you found in your so called research? How many people said they want an alliance to teach them about sales? How did you collect the data objectively? Or was it all done over coffee or dinner?
How many people said they wanted a new group to represent them?
How many of those said they approached the current associations and were turned away without answers?
The main challenges we are faced with are defining ourselves as a profession and getting the respect of the medical profession and the insurance companies. You will need one group to address these issues otherwise you will just get many different answers. Right now the insurance companies here in WA are already trying to define the massage profession for us. That in itself scares the heck out of me!
Julie
Mike Hinkle said:
Julie,
We are not an association. We are an Alliance of Therapists. No research? Six years of research at Festival. I don't know how many addressed issues that are not being addressed by Associations.
Merge AMTA and ABMP? I don't think that's gonna happen. I don't think it would be good for massage either. I don't think "one voice" is ever the answer. I am going to do everything I can to add a voice to the mix. I hope it never gets to where it walks in lockstep with what it feels is wrong because that's the trend.
Massage has many voices in America and I hope the Alliance will help them be heard as well.
-
-
Julie,
I did not see research listed as a prerequisite for my doing this. Usually when a group of like minded folks get together these things happen. And as we know research can manipulated to say what you want, so ya'll would have challenged the wording or the meaning of every word. Ain't got the money or time for it.
I have spoken to enough therapists in the last six years to know we could have 5 more Alliances just like this and not get to all the help needed out there. I am tired of sitting here waiting for someone to come help these therapists. I care and a lot of people signing up to volunteer their time care. And it is our time to do as we will, right? You can read whatever you want into motivations, verbage, pictures, whatever. We are going to do this.
Insurance companies have no business defining the massage profession.
Therapists in WA should be defining their profession. Every state should be doing the same, therapist by therapist. And it does not have to be like any other state. This lockstep mentality is why there much of our internal strife. The different 52 legislatures and thousands of therapists in every state would have to be on the same field for there to be just one way. And that will NEVER happen.
Julie Onofrio said:So where is your research Mike - all of the statistics that you found in your so called research? How many people said they want an alliance to teach them about sales? How did you collect the data objectively? Or was it all done over coffee or dinner?
How many people said they wanted a new group to represent them?
How many of those said they approached the current associations and were turned away without answers?
The main challenges we are faced with are defining ourselves as a profession and getting the respect of the medical profession and the insurance companies. You will need one group to address these issues otherwise you will just get many different answers. Right now the insurance companies here in WA are already trying to define the massage profession for us. That in itself scares the heck out of me!
Julie
Mike Hinkle said:
Julie,
We are not an association. We are an Alliance of Therapists. No research? Six years of research at Festival. I don't know how many addressed issues that are not being addressed by Associations.
Merge AMTA and ABMP? I don't think that's gonna happen. I don't think it would be good for massage either. I don't think "one voice" is ever the answer. I am going to do everything I can to add a voice to the mix. I hope it never gets to where it walks in lockstep with what it feels is wrong because that's the trend.
Massage has many voices in America and I hope the Alliance will help them be heard as well.
-
-
but that is the point - we are helpless without a large cohesive org to help us do that. As providers we are unable to organize to stand up to them. It is part of our contracts. The orgs have to do it. They don't have the manpower now or the numbers to do much.
Julie
-
-
Helpless against who? Them? Organizations have to do what? You have a contract? What for? You are confusing.
Julie, associations do NOT do these things. That's why I keep telling you that we are different. We will address issues that the present associations don't.
So are we just going to sit here and wait for the legislatures to take us apart and do their will or are we going to START?
One voice? How is that America?
I chose to stand up and organize and help as many therapists as I can. And so do hundreds of others. We will make a difference.
-
Permalink Reply by Lisa on
-
Mike, please don't assume I don't know how incorporations are "done". Do you know all of my experiences and skills? It is THIS attitude that has caused MOST of the thread to evolve (or should i say devolve) into what it is now.
Either way, I don't NEED to know how it is done. The fact is, that if you allow those that are helping you write the by-laws NOW...whom have been chosen by YOU, it is inappropriate to allow them to run for a BOD position. Once again, this will be a huge conflict of interest if you are truly making this an alliance for all therapists.
In addition, I do NOT understand why you don't give out the names. I have not once, picked up the phone or sent a private email to you on this subject, nor would I do that to the "leadership team". Who has trust issues? I am looking for names and credentials so I can be satisfied as a potential member, as to who is representing MY voice in this. If you can't understand that then you do not have the appropriate credentials to put such an alliance together. If you want the voting to be FAIR, it should not have members who have written it, running for office. But, as you've stated clearly over and over again...this is YOUR alliance, YOUR festival, and you are the incorporater and can do what ever you want. And guess what...that's FINE.
Just don't come on here, a forum that is suppose to be a group of "massage professionals" and tell us that this group is for US. it is clearly NOT.
Mike Hinkle said:Lisa,
You wonder why I won't subject their names to you?
The Alliance of Teachers that just formed in Utah was formed by the incorporators. It usually is done this way, Lisa. I don't know where you get this idea of conflict. Any massage therapist that is a member can run for office, anytime we want, including me. This is my personal decision, not to run.
Rick Rosen, thought up, incorporated and is the ED for the Alliance. His wife is in charge of their learning programs. Someone has to do the work. I am trying to show good faith is all, by not running. I could have total control. I chose to give it to the therapists. But if I wanted to run or will in the future, that is my concern and it is legal. You are trying to use a false pretense that there is a conflict of interest because I own a for-profit business? You are not aware of how incorporations are done.
Have a good day!
Lisa said:There is no way, I gain. If people are upset, because others may attend the Festival and attend classes to help their education, again that is a side benefit for both.
Where the perceived conflict of interest is, is that in order to vote one has to attend the festival. It is HIGHLY unlikely that one will travel out of their state to JUST vote. And, the perceived conflict is that IF one DID go JUST to vote...(marketing 101 tells us) they will end up staying, and register and go to the festival. So the festival, ergo, YOU, makes more money than you would have, should the voting have been also offered through email.
I would also like to ask, since we are not being told who these veteran therapists/teachers are that are helping you with the by-laws, are THEY allowed to run for BOD? You said you will not be. However, this elite group that YOU'VE formed to speak on OUR behalf, should not be able to run either since it would be a conflict of interest in that they are writing the by-laws. Their participation in the BOD would be inappropriate since they are in it from ground up. However, since you will not tell us who they are, how then are we to know just how "fair" this election is?
-
-
Lisa,
No, I think the situation is being turned around. Please don't assume I will take advantage of a situation that I haven't.
The fact is the LAW allows them to be on the BOD, not Lisa. This veteran group of three have 70 years of experience.
Like I would give them to you their names now. There is no rule that I have to release their names at all. If this harassment continues, I may not. Time will tell. I was going to do it as a courtesy but I may refrain as it could be used against them. They have not expressed their desires yet. But if any ask me not to at this point and after this hazing, I will not give their name.
Lisa, this is not your incorporation. If you wish to start your own, please do so. You are the one putting in things that you think should be right, I am following the law. You consider your privacy so important but expect others just helping to be exposed to you and yours. Even if you don't harass them, others may. I chose to be here for therapists and I am staying and announcing the information as I see needed. I am a therapist. Thank you.
Have a good day!
-
-
I never thought that you would draw wisdom from a fictional character in The Princess Bride to tell me that I don't know what a word means.
Sorry; I just naturally assumed you were familiar with the concept of "allusion". I apologize for misjudging that, and will stick to strictly literal discussion, should there be any future interactions with you.
Obviously there would be no conflict of interest if the basis of your argument ("MTs advocating for more responsibility and better education for themselves") were correct. The problem is, that's not what we have here.
In addition to my practice, I teach. Students and graduates talk to me. There is a real hunger out there to know more about massage, about the world around us, and about how to use that knowledge to serve patients/clients better. You may not see it, but it is real. Many students want better than what they've traditionally been offered.
I'm saying I talk to those students and graduates a lot about what they want for themselves; you're saying they don't exist ("that's not what we have here"). That's fine; they don't need your validation. But denying their experience does put you in kind of a bad light.
What we have is: book authors, researchers, teachers, online education consulants, accreditation consultants and others who earn a good amount of money and benefits from non-MT work, selling us on the idea that:
Um, this is America. Since when has earning a good amount of money selling your opinion been anything wrong in a capitalist system?
Just because *you* don't like their ideas doesn't make it a conflict of interest--that's not enough. What makes it a conflict of interest is the use of power or an institutional structure to profit unduly or to exert undue influence over other people. Simply selling books and courses whose content you don't approve of is not a conflict of interest.
we should only do x type of work,
Citation please. After seeing how Bodhi's posts were grossly mischaracterized and then how that grotesque strawman was attacked, I'm sure you'll understand why I want to see primary sources before I accept your totalizing second-hand account of their opinions. And then I would also like to see the evidence that there is a component of undue influence, rather than just an opinion you don't approve of.
we should all be degreed in MT or otherwise we are not "competent",
Citation please. Also, what is the evidence of conflict of interest, rather than just an opinion you don't approve of?
being a good massage therapist is a function of longer initial schooling instead of shorter initial schooling and CE,
Actually, I would agree with you that the current state of schools is not such that more exposure to them would necessarily make a better massage therapist. However, I expect that the argument is actually for more and *better* schooling, not just more of the status quo. Again, I would like to see the citation, please. And even if you have accurately relayed their opinion, please show evidence how are they are using undue influence to create a conflict of interest.
I think you are confusing advocacy with conflict of interest, frankly.
that we should all be making our money primarily from insurance.
Citation please. Also, evidence that this view has institutional undue influence that would constitute conflict of interest, rather than just someone's opinion that you don't approve of.
The people proposing these changes would be the first to benefit from their suggestions and that is where the conflict of interest is.
No, that's where the capitalism is. Or, if you prefer, the entrepreneurialism. Just profiting from your suggestions is not conflict of interest. You have to show undue influence or profit to demonstrate that conflict of interest, or else you are just bandying about a word that you do not understand. Or else you are deliberately misusing it, although I am becoming more and more convinced that you just don't know what the word means.
What's worse, nobody has shown that massage therapists will also receive a benefit from these proposed changes.
So what's stopping you from adding your voice to the debate? The marketplace of ideas, and all that?
I have also asked repeatedly why some here think 'accreditation' is better, especially in light of the fiasco of accredited "for profit schools" being investigated by the government. There are no answers coming forth, just more of the same regurgitations.
Um, doesn't the fact that they found a problem and are investigating it mean that they are *addressing* the issue? I don't understand either how this is a conflict of interest, nor how this fits with the MTAA rhetoric about massage being sold out to corporations.
Why aren't you applying this same statement to the situation in this thread, as Mike could very well be an "MT acting in good faith to address problems he perceives in massage therapy."?
Because when people asked him perfectly reasonable questions of the type you would expect potential members, who are asked to lend their time, money, and good name to an organization, to do as a matter of due diligence, he doubled down on the secrecy and the speculation about their bad motives. That's not an indicator of good faith.
It is you who and others who are demonizing him here who should apologize to him.
"Demonizing"? HAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one.
I will stand by my "conflict of interest" statement.
Well, all rightey then.
-
-
Sorry; I just naturally assumed you were familiar with the concept of "allusion". I apologize for misjudging that, and will stick to strictly literal discussion, should there be any future interactions with you.
"Oh, ho, ho, allusion! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here.", to quote another fictional character. What we do get quite often here is pompousness, and that I do recognize!
"In addition to my practice, I teach. Students and graduates talk to me. There is a real hunger out there to know more about massage, about the world around us, and about how to use that knowledge to serve patients/clients better. You may not see it, but it is real. Many students want better than what they've traditionally been offered."
I am glad you teach and, of course, there is a real hunger out there, nobody argues the obvious. What is not obvious is what you choose to leave out of your argument: that the suggestions that have been made on several online boards over the past couple years have not been accompanied by any evidence that they would work in the US or that they serve the interests of MTs in the U.S.
I'm saying I talk to those students and graduates a lot about what they want for themselves; you're saying they don't exist ("that's not what we have here"). That's fine; they don't need your validation. But denying their experience does put you in kind of a bad light.
I have not met you in person, and don't know if I should assume that you are joking, or if you would like me to break down my statement in sub-sentences so that it makes sense.
"Um, this is America. Since when has earning a good amount of money selling your opinion been anything wrong in a capitalist system?"
I love capitalism, dear Ravensara, and I would not be in this country if I didn't. However, would you agree that it is pretty shitty to do, to sell to someone something that will harm them? The "buyer beware" thing doesn't work when your audience is in a dark room all day long doing massages and does not have access to the information that you do. And won't even be an even shittier thing to do, to sell them something that not only harms them but it enriches you? I understand that it is an ethical question and don't expect you to agree with me.
"Just because *you* don't like their ideas doesn't make it a conflict of interest--that's not enough. ."
Wrong assumption again Ravensara! I never said that I don't like their ideas. What I said is that I would like to see evidence that what they are proposing would work in the U.S. They are the evidence-based group and they cannot even produce a shred of evidence that those ideas would work here. What is immediately obvious is that they - those with the proposals- would benefit from these changes, and they are already receiving benefits from making those proposals.
"What makes it a conflict of interest is the use of power or an institutional structure to profit unduly or to exert undue influence over other people. "
Well said, although it does not have to be institutional structure. You as an MT, referring your client to someone who provides you with a referral fee, is a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest is a conflict between the private interests of an individual in a position of public trust and the official responsibilities that this person has. It is obvious that you cannot see what conflict could potentially exist between an accredation consultant who lobbies for schools to be accredited, or for someone who makes his living in reasearch for more research, or for someone who seems to have a pretty good time working the national lecture scene to want to increase it. Nothing wrong with any of those activities as long as they create value for the therapists and the profession, but that is where the debate is.
"Citation please. After seeing how Bodhi's posts were grossly mischaracterized... "
Really? Grossly mischaracterized? I will give you citations and tell me if they are mischaracterized...
"Actually, I would agree with you that the current state of schools is not such that more exposure to them would necessarily make a better massage therapist. However, I expect that the argument is actually for more and *better* schooling, not just more of the status quo. "
Yippee!!!!! this is something that we agree on. More of the same won't do a thing. It is about competencies, not about number of hours. It is about improving schools. It's not about more of the status quo, it's about having a real discussion instead of arrogant comments like "we make loads of cash" (on massageproessionals, today)
"I think you are confusing advocacy with conflict of interest, frankly."
Frankly, I don' t think we speak the same language.
Here are some citations for you, and I gotta move on.. its been fun.
- On why massage therapy needs degree programs: "Why massage therapy needs degree programs", facebook note by Bodhi Haraldson. It was not meant as a white paper, but I still can't find the explanation.
- A note from Susan Chappele just this morning on massageprofessionals.com to illustrate the "forcing" attitude: "And yes. You should do what me and Bodhi want. It is good for our profession. "
- On accreditation in a post by Jason Erickson on massageprofessionals.com in the group Minnesota MTs: "In the long run, shouldn't all schools be striving for accreditation? If not, why would that be considered acceptable?" That defeats any prior reasoning I have heard on the topic.
- On "you are either with us or you dislike education" mindset by Sue Shekut in Bodhi's note above: " However, those of you that dislike education may not like the result. Because I predict it would show that the public does not like the MT with 500 hours as expert model."
- On explaining how RMTs get paid in Canada (I don't know how that translates in the U.S. where we don't have national insurance) by Bodhi Haraldson on massageprofessionals: "again the province (not state) here pays for some (not all) RMT work, Workers insurance pays for RMT rehab work, car insurance pays for some of our work, private insurance pays for most of or work....... There are many players and many avenues for payments."
- On the concept of diversity by Bodhi on Massageprofessionals.com: "The existence of competing national entities can prevent the profession from speaking with one national voice"
- There is also one more citation that I cannot find, also on massageprofessionals, where Bodhi explains that sure there are spa therapists but RMTs with 2,200 hours are 'competent'.. which I take to mean they have passed the competency exam..
There are so many more, and several of them on EBT, but I really have to go....Please let me know if you need additional explanations, I can take a day off from work and look for them. Again, my issue is not with the suggestions, it's with the evidence. Until these guys show me that MTs will benefit, I think they only are doing it for themselves.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
