Reforming Medical Ethics

I just received an email from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, of which I am a member. The email was about new ethical standards to be observed by pharmaceutical company representatives in their dealings with physicians. The idea is that if a sales rep gives me a pen or a pad of post-its with the name of a drug on it, I might thereby be induced to prescribe that drug to patients even when they do not need it, and the patient would have to spend his hard-earned money on that company's product. I am, after all, human, and,therefore, weak. And our government, our country, our Congress, can not take the chance that doctors like me, in our weakness, might yield to the temptation to prescribe drugs simply because sales reps give us pens. Here is what the email said, in part:

Companies and their representatives cannot provide or pay for any entertainment
or recreational activities for you or your staff, even if business or education
is conducted as part of the event.
Companies and their representatives cannot distribute any branded non-educational items, such as notepads, mugs, pens or other “reminder” objects that typically have a company or product logo.
Only occasional modest meals may be provided to health care professionals, and only
in settings conducive to informational presentations. Meals for spouses and
guests are not permitted. [emphasis added]

I am OK with this. The pens were lousy. But I have one question: do lobbyists follow the same rules when they are asking members of Congress to spend my hard-earned tax dollars?

No Tax Hike for People Earning Less Than $250,000?

I was shocked to read yesterday (Feb. 28, 2009)in the Times Herald Record, Middletown, NY that Senator Chuck Schumer supports Obama's budget proposal. This is what the author, Chris McKenna, quoting Schumer, said, in part:

"My view is that the very highest end should pay more taxes, and that's because
the median incomes are shrinking," he said. "The average, middle-class person,
in the last seven or eight years, has treaded water, at best."
Schumer declined to specify an income threshold for raising taxes.

"Declined to specify an income threshold."

You know what this means: hold on to your wallet!

Photo credit: Times Herald-Record/DOMINICK FIORILLE

Earmarks, or Don't You Just Trust These Guys Implicitly?

[the 2009 omnibus spending bill] also includes $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass in Mississippi; $1.2 million to control cormorants in Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Vermont; $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah; and $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii.                                 

The above is in addition to nearly 9000 other earmarks, worth nearly $8,000,000,000.  This according to the New York Times, February 25 ,2009  (House Passes Spending Bill, and Critics Are Quick to Point Out Pork, by Robert Pear).   If the Times published it, the article probably underestimates the amount of pork.   I guess this is what the attendees at Obama's fiscal responsibility summit had in mind:   Take taxpayer money and use it to buy votes.  

CHANGE HAS COME TO AMERICA.   HALLELUJAH.

The photo of Iago and Othello is from the New York Times also.