. . . but, maybe we’re not both covered. The fight over Medicare covering “lifestyle drugs”
(A/P, Feb. 2. 2005) is quite complicated. See “Lifestyle drugs: Issues for Debate,” by Joel
Lexchin, M.D., CMAJ, May 16, 2001). Whether private insureds or taxpayers should help
oldtimers and Baby Boomers to extend their youth, by underwriting treatments for “ailments”
like male pattern baldness or erectile dysfunction is a very big financial and social issue.
Dr. Lexchin broaches many of the issues in his CMAJ article and states:
“If we as a society decide that lifestyle drugs should be covered through the
health care system, then other treatments may not get funded or at least will
not get as much funding as they otherwise would have. Decisions will also be
needed about who will get the drugs (since almost everyone will want one or
more of them) and whether they will be available in unlimited supply.
“. . . We need to find mechanisms whereby all elements of society — government,
industry, health care professionals, patients and consumers — can participate in
the decisions.”
On Feb. 13, as the Sunday talking heads wrung their hands over this, and conservative
Republicans said they must “revisit” the Medicare drug coverage of lifestyle drugs (despite a
Presidential veto threat for any attempts to decrease coverage), I could not help but note —
speaking of lifestyle choices — that by next Valentine’s Day Medicare could be paying for two
[or more?] Cialis prescriptions for the aging partners in one household. Can you say “unintended
consequences,” Mr. President? (or extended side effects?)
Perhaps, you’ll have to have a Designated Consort or a Marriage
License to get ED drugs.
Bainbridge explains, in detail and persuasively, why group weblogs that bring
in income are probably partnerships under Section 202(a) of the Uniform
Partnership Act (1997). Seems to me, that if the basic tackiness of using ads
and begging-jars on your site is not enough to stop such practices, the
added aggravation of partnership issues for group weblogs should tip the
balance toward keeping them lucre-free. If you still won’t give up group
advertising and mendicity, Prof. B has a book for you, of course. I’m willing
to bet that Steve will stay solo in the blogiverse.
reports on a new ABA ethics opinion [Formal Opinion 04-433 (2004)] under
Model Rule 8.3. Here’s the synopsis:
Obligation of a Lawyer to Report Professional Misconduct by
a Lawyer Not Engaged in the Practice of Law
A lawyer having knowledge of the professional misconduct of
another licensed lawyer, including a non-practicing lawyer, is
obligated under Model Rule 8.3 to report such misconduct if it
raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trust-
worthiness, or fitness as a lawyer. The professional misconduct
must be reported even if it involves activity completely removed
from the practice of law. If the report would require revealing the
confidential information of a client, the lawyer must obtain the
client’s informed consent before making the report.
The f/k/a gang agrees. Having asserted that lawyers “need to remember
that ethics rules apply even when it takes courage to comply,” we applaud
the Ethics Committee. The Journal article concludes as follows:
The ethics committee acknowledges in its opinion that reporting
a colleague’s misconduct, particularly if that lawyer is a supervisor,
can be awkward and uncomfortable, and it even may put the reporting
lawyer’s career in jeopardy. But, the committee emphasizes, “Because
the legal profession enjoys the privilege of regulating itself, it is
critically important that its members fulfill their responsibility to stand
guard over the profession’s integrity and high standards.”
On the other hand, lots of very good ABA Formal Ethics Opinions are consistenly
ignored by bar Counsel and lawyers across the land.
“tinyredcheck” . . . but, I won that Valentine’s Day divorce.
Someone named Heidi won the WKRL-FM contest, and the overvalued legal services of
Brad S. Margolis. I sent an email to attorney Margolis and the radio station on Sunday,
asking whether I got the facts straight in my post the valentine-divorce lawyer. Neither
has responded. Our expose didn’t even make it into the list compiled by the station under
the heading “Not EVERYONE Liked the Idea of That Damn Morning Show giving away a
divorce” We didn’t garner any media attention either (but got some agita at Carolyn’s place).
However, I’m pleased to say that the posting is the #3 result at Google for the search inquiry
update II (Feb. 16, midnite): Lawyer Brad S. Margolis contacted me twice this
vening. In his first email, he noted “I am not getting anything for this promotion,
In fact I am even paying 100 percent of the filing fees out of my own pocket.”
On the issue of his flat fee for uncontested divorces, Margolis stated:
“Yes my online fees are less than my in office fees, that is to make legal
fees affordable to people who are lucky to have money for food. . . .
“As and for what the cost of an uncontested Divorce is I believe that
the figure quoted is not incorrect and online prices which you should
know are far less than in office cases. Just a matter of common sense,
which apparently you lacked in your biased appraisal of my actions.
When I responded with more questions, he wrote back and clarified that “in
many cases I do charge that fee for an uncontested divorce. [Y]es I do discount
my web services as I find the overhead of the web office much lower than the
high priced rent I must factor in to some of my offices.”
I wrote back to say I can’t imagine how the cost of clients attracted online can
be so significantly lower as to warrant the difference between $1000 and $375.
I also noted that I continue to believe that $1000 is too much for what Margolis
himself called the “paper-pushing” of an uncontested divorce. Readers will
have to decide for themselves whether “The approximate retail value of
Uncontested Divorce is $1,000.00.”
the tea smoke
and the willow
dance partners
ISSA, translated by David G. Lanoue
February 15, 2005
sorry, pardner . . .
Comments Off on sorry, pardner . . .
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.