Congress' Fiduciary Standard debate - appears a fallacy from the start; ignores Wall St's "We'll take care of everything for you" reps & warranties

Wikipedia defines "fallacy" as - In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor, or take advantage of...

The House proposal is for a fiduciary standard but ONLY at the point of sale; just like the present Suitability (which is only an appropriate investment threshold test for the customer; as opposed to in the best interests of the customer under a fiduciary standard). Some call this the "Fiduciary Lite" proposal - see Investment News article here http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20100624/FREE/100629937/-1/INDaily01

Why it's better described as lunacy...
Imagine, your doctor ran tests and informed you he had to perform a surgical procedure to operate on your appendix, after he goes in he sees you have heavy bleeding from your lung - under the proposed fiduciary lite - he has NO duty to provide care - see why it's lunacy? It's a see nothing, know nothing, do nothing beyond that which was initially recommended; it's as if there is no natural human curiosity, no learning curve, no memory, no interest and/or complete, total ignorance of what Wall St's broker dealers have spent billions advertising, and represented thru the ages - in the parlance - "trust us, we're the experts, we'll take care of everything for you" - never once does it say - BUT ONLY AT THE POINT OF SALE!!

I hope I am incorrect - but don't think so - this it appears is a classic unintended consequence or is it unintended?

And to think we work hard and pay taxes to and for something called informed debate!
Ending the siesta on the taxpayers dime - one easy to read blog at a time.