Comments on: July 9 roundup

By: markm

markm — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:38:49 +0000

Not that I think much of Public Citizen, but your sources are taking the worst possible interpretation of their statement about the new drug. It’s always true that the first users of a just-approved drug become guinea pigs for any effects that either don’t show up for years or only affect a few users. You can’t detect such things until it’s been on the market and used by many people for several years – which makes it always a good idea to stick to the older treatments if they work for you, and let other people (with a greater need, or just less caution) be the guinea pigs.

At least, Public Citizen didn’t recommend that the government prevent anyone from trying the new drugs. I’m pleasantly surprised by that…

By: Anonymous Attorney

Anonymous Attorney — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:54 +0000

Re: conservative public interest law firms – there is some discordance with the body of cases picked up, i.e., what’s “less regulation” got in common with fighting racial preferences? Often, I note, “big business” wants nothing to do with arguments against racial preferences because they want to posture as politically correct. Is one cause used to fund the other? I’d like to see a public interest firm dedicated solely to fighting preferences and anti-white discrimination. The question is, who would provide funding? I imagine half the corporations in America are lining up to donate to the NAACP, but they’d probably run like rabbits from my proposed firm.

By: Melvin

Melvin — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:30:18 +0000

The quote about HIPAA is actually under-stating the problem: If you go to more than one doctor, you have to fill out a HIPAA form--EVERY YEAR, for EVERY DOCTOR--and each one is set-up different. Same if you have someone, person or gov't. agency, helping out with Medicare/Medicaid, etc. paperwork. Why couldn't the law allow for ONE standard form across the board, photo-copies allowed????