<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: July 9 roundup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/july-9-roundup/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/july-9-roundup/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:39:32 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: markm</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/july-9-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-8135</link>
		<dc:creator>markm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jul 2007 15:38:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5092#comment-8135</guid>
		<description>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&#039;s always true that the first users of a just-approved drug become guinea pigs for any effects that either don&#039;t show up for years or only affect a few users. You can&#039;t detect such things until it&#039;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&#039;t recommend that the government prevent anyone from trying the new drugs. I&#039;m pleasantly surprised by that...
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s always true that the first users of a just-approved drug become guinea pigs for any effects that either don&#8217;t show up for years or only affect a few users. You can&#8217;t detect such things until it&#8217;s been on the market and used by many people for several years &#8211; 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.</p>
<p>At least, Public Citizen didn&#8217;t recommend that the government prevent anyone from trying the new drugs. I&#8217;m pleasantly surprised by that&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous Attorney</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/july-9-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-8134</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous Attorney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:53:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5092#comment-8134</guid>
		<description>Re:  conservative public interest law firms - there is some discordance with the body of cases picked up, i.e., what&#039;s &quot;less regulation&quot; got in common with fighting racial preferences? Often, I note, &quot;big business&quot; 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&#039;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&#039;d probably run like rabbits from my proposed firm.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re:  conservative public interest law firms &#8211; there is some discordance with the body of cases picked up, i.e., what&#8217;s &#8220;less regulation&#8221; got in common with fighting racial preferences? Often, I note, &#8220;big business&#8221; 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&#8217;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&#8217;d probably run like rabbits from my proposed firm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Melvin</title>
		<link>http://overlawyered.com/2007/07/july-9-roundup/comment-page-1/#comment-8133</link>
		<dc:creator>Melvin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 02:30:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5092#comment-8133</guid>
		<description>The quote about HIPAA is actually &lt;i&gt;under-stating&lt;/i&gt; the problem:  If you go to more than one doctor, you have to fill out a HIPAA form--&lt;b&gt;&lt;i&gt;EVERY YEAR, for EVERY DOCTOR&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/b&gt;--and each one is set-up different.  Same if you have someone, person or gov&#039;t. agency, helping out with Medicare/Medicaid, etc. paperwork.  Why couldn&#039;t the law allow for &lt;b&gt;ONE&lt;/b&gt; standard form across the board, photo-copies allowed????
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The quote about HIPAA is actually <i>under-stating</i> the problem:  If you go to more than one doctor, you have to fill out a HIPAA form&#8211;<b><i>EVERY YEAR, for EVERY DOCTOR</i></b>&#8211;and each one is set-up different.  Same if you have someone, person or gov&#8217;t. agency, helping out with Medicare/Medicaid, etc. paperwork.  Why couldn&#8217;t the law allow for <b>ONE</b> standard form across the board, photo-copies allowed????</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

