Anonymous Law Firm Hits The Web

So Anonymous Lawyer's lawfirm finally has its website up. Its pretty funny. And yet sad, since I recognize parts of my old firm in that website.

The Anonymous Lawyer's book is due out in the next few months. I might actually buy it (since there is no way in hell I deserve a free advance copy.)

There are times I feel like this

I saw this over on another blog site and thought it summed up my week.

Little bit more on the whole Reilly v. Ma (or is it Ma v. Reilly) thing

According to the Chronicle's Matier and Ross today, this 12th District, which I apparently live in (or at least live close enough that I get the mailers and have to be subjected to the tv ads) is a pretty big fight. In one corner you have the entrenched Sacramento group, whose outgoing standard bearer wants Ma to take over. In the other corner you have the wife of the man who was the standard bearer's political foe.

What does this mean? Upwards of 2 million dollars has been spent on a sleepy district that includes a large number of dead people (the 12th includes Colma, where the cemetaries are). And this has been a nasty fight. Its included charges that one of the candidates worked for an anti-abortion govenor in South Dakota (one hell of an IRS goof). Then there has been the counter-attack which has included that, horror of horrors, one candidate dared to send her children to a catholic school!

The Chronicle just came out for Ma. However, in reading it, I almost think that they are using the Brian Sabean approach to free agents (i.e. if the player's an older veteran he must be good. And Mr. Sabean if you do read this, don't hold this against me when I put in for season tickets!).

Of course, it would have been nice to hear that candidates debate the issues instead of their choice of schools for their childern. However, one candidate seemed less than eager to do so. So that leads me to wonder why?

As I said before, I endorse neither of these people. I just find the whole thing amusing in a "will you stop putting on these awful commercials the take me out of my Doctor Who/Battlestar Galactica/Veronica Mars groove".

Everyone gets to be a pharmacist

Apparently, its to increase their own profit margin and not to pool resources of many to make medical costs cheaper. Or at least that is what I am getting from this article in today's Chronicle where UnitedHealth Group, the nation's second largest health insurer, is urging some of its insurees to buy large doses of medicines and cut them in half.

Basically, they are telling people that medicines are too expensive and the co-pays are not going to come down. Therefore, they want people to buy dosages that are double what they are supposed to take and then cut the pill in half.

Now, I have done this in the past, but that was usually because the doctor was taking me down in my medication to a point where they do not make a pill in the amount he or she wanted me to take. And this is done at a doctor's instruction, not an insurance company's. However, in this instance, the insurance companies are saying to their insurees "too bad that costs are so high, we need to keep our profits, so instead of finding some other way to ease the burden, we want you to to play pharmacist."

And that is essentially what they want. Pills do not always split nicely down the center. This means that people could end up getting under dosages and over dosages. With some medications, this will harm the effect the drug is supposed to have on the person. And what is the upside to the patient? By UnitedHealth's estimate a 1 to 2 percent savings. So rather than not be as profitable as possible, they would rather pass it on to the insured. To me, this does not seem like the best way to keep clients healthy.

But never fear, guess who is against this? That's right the drug companies. However, they are claiming to be against it because of the risk to the patients who use their products. Somehow, what I think they are really worried about is that this will eat into their profits as well.

So what is the real problem here? Drug costs are too high. Why is that? Well, I'm sure that the drug companies would say that it is the lawyers that are driving up the costs with their "frivolous litigation". They would probably say that they need to have the high prices in order to recoup the costs of developing the drugs. However, it would seem that the cost is artificially inflated because of the monopoly the companies have over the formulation because of their patent rights. This allows the drug company, and not the market, to set the price for the drug.

Hypocrite?

Normally, I could care less who represents me in Sacramento. I know that I should care, seeing as how the California legislature is actually closer to me than the politicians in Washington, but nevertheless I do. I think it has something to do with the fact that I'm fuzzy about what the candidates actually want to do in Sacramento.

So this year really started out no differently. From what I understand, Janet Reilly and Fiona Ma are fighting it out for a state assembly seat. Until the other day, the only thing I thought about it was that Janet Reilly reminded me of an actress who used to play the girlfriend for Harmon Rabb on JAG.

And then on Friday I recevied a political flyer in my mailbox. Normally, I toss them out immediately, but with the cover defining the word "hypocrite", I decided to read it before tossing it out.

Apparently Janet Reilly has made the environment the centerpiece of her campaign. So a group supporting Fiona Ma has struck back calling her a hypocrite. Why? Ms. Reilly seems to invest a sizeable portion of her money in pharmaceuticals. And because these companies make drugs which have apparently harmed people (e.g. Vioxx) .

So now professing to support the environment and making money has become hypocritical? Please. This is just silly. Why not debate the issues and stay away from the personal attacks? Or is that beyond a group that claims to be the leaders of California?

I want it clear. I am not endorsing or supporting either candidate. I am, however, in favor of candidates debating issues that matter and not ad hominem attacks.

A Slow Newsday?

Apparently the AP is reporting that the police arrested some prostitutes. How did they do this? They ran an undercover operation by browsing posted on craigslist.

The question becomes either a) its taken the police this long to realize that prostitutes post ads for customers on craigslist? or, more likely, b) someone at the AP really needed to file something the day before a holiday weekend.

Good Job the AUSAs who tried the case!

It was certainly not a sexy case. It relied on a lot of numbers, a lot of papers, and a lot of things that most people would not find sexy in a case. However, it was a massive case of fraud and the AUSAs who tried the case obtained the verdict from the jurors today.

Kenneth Lay and James Skilling are no longer suspected of committing fraud. The jury today found them guilty. Mr. Lay as convicted on six counts of conspiracy and fraud. Mr. Skilling was found guilty of 19 counts of of conspiracy, fraud, false statements, and insider trading. Lay was also convicted by a the U.S. District Court Judge of four counts of fraud on charges which were tried the bench only. Of the entire indictment, only Skiling managed any acquittals. The jury found him not guilty on nine counts of insider trading. Pretty damn good!