Category Archives: Law

Techie Hat On : Network Neutrality – The Myths

Posted on by

Having worked in telecommunications, I am quite entertained by the network neutrality debate. Both sides continue to push myths as facts. Two things:

  • There has never been true network neutrality.
  • Costs for real control would be, expensive.

I’ll talk about the lack of current network neutrality today. . .

Providers of bandwidth – telecommunications and cable companies (primarily) – try to give priority to their own traffic and to preferred partners already. This is a long-standing practice from the days of P.O.T.S (Plain Old Telephone Services). They do this partially by charging for accessing the part of the network that they own.

This is where it gets tricky. Who actually owns certain parts of the network? We have the major players – AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and some names you will never hear of – and we have local companies who are providing that last little bit of network connectivity to your home or business. There are portions of that network that more than one company claims as their own.

This lack of clear distinction has created an entire field within telecommunications known as Cost of Access (COA). This is not normal accounting. No, this is a type of accounting that you need to be a specialist to deal with. Telephony is all about billing and this is where you will either make or break your bank. Often, disputes arise over whether that is actually something that you (the provider) can actually charge for.

What happens with those disputes? Well, those customers who are being difficult, can, in some instances be shunted to the back of the call queue. This starts getting into things like origination points – which aren’t always clear – and can end up causing poor service to innocent parties. Of course, we are talking about milliseconds here, but when you are charging by the minute and rounding up, that can end up costing a great deal.

There are also a variety of types of equipment used in the world of telephony and internet networks to allow priority to go to certain types of traffic. It can even block traffic completely. There is even throttling of some traffic types.

At a very, very basic level, priority would be something like telling the system that any network traffic originating from the providers office gets moved to the front of the queue and can take up all available bandwidth. (This is very simplified.) It can even be told to push out other types of traffic. This is harder, and has some limitations, but can be done.

Blocking traffic can be easy or hard. It depends on how you want to do it. There is an entire part of the internet called the “Darknet.” No, you don’t want to go there. Really. This is the place where credit card and banking numbers are bought and sold in batches by Eastern European and Asian hackers. There are entire blocks of IP Addresses (that thing that identifies a given computer on the internet) that are completely blocked from the “legitimate” internet.

Now, please feel free to ask any questions you want. I will be glad to bug my husband (a real network and security expert) for answers and then try to create a simplified explanation.

Please remember this is a very oversimplified description meant for a general audience. I know that the techies out there can shoot holes through a lot of this with exceptions, but you all realize that this is basically true!

Ovarian Cancer, Rescission, Congress, and Lots of Lying

Posted on by

A great synopsis of what is going on is over at Docudharma. Basically, they admitted they stop paying for any condition they can for any technicality whatsoever – including ovarian cancer and pregnancy. They also admitted that they were unwilling to not rescind anyone who simply makes a mistake versus being fraudulent.

Once someone is rescinded, no one will insure that person.

Oh, by the way, rescission is when they deny care after the fact. Even Texas Republicans are after them for this one.

If you want to watch them lie and be proud of cruel policies, just go to the government’s site. You can watch the insurance people leave Congress incredulous with their policies.

 

I would suggest that every single person who reads this blog that believes this is wrong – and what decent person would think this is right – should contact their senator and representative to criminalize this behavior.

You can find your U.S. Senator at the Senate site.

You can find your U.S. Representative by writing them at http://www.house.gov/writerep/.

Ovarian Cancer (and Other Gynecological Cancer) Awareness Legislation – Johanna’s Law Up for Renewal

Posted on by

A break from reviews this Thursday, to bring you an important message…

It isn’t just patients and the public that need awareness raised in cancer fighting. It is important that funding be there for medical professionals at all levels. In that vein, please support this legislation:

http://capwiz.com/ovarian/home/

Yes, call, email, show up in your Congress Critters’ offices and say, “I support this important legislation because I don’t want any woman dying from something that can be treated if it is caught in time!” (Yes, this is a renewal if you think you recall seeing this law before.)

It’s the “caught in time” part that is the hardest. Most doctors don’t know enough to check the ovaries first when IBS type symptoms appear. This means the vast majority of ovarian cancer patients are not treated prior to Stage 3!

There is something really wrong with diagnosis not coming before Stage 3 in 80% of cases. A simple ultrasound and blood test when there are symptoms should not be denied due to insurance, physician or other negligence. And, sorry, it is negligence. Story after story is about being told it was anything but cancer and never having had an ultrasound with a qualified gynecological radiologist.

So, please, click on over and support renewing Johanna’s Law.

George Tiller, Choices Unfaced, and Fear of the “Pro-Lifers’” World

Posted on by

While I was in the hospital recovering from my ovarian cancer discovery and staging surgery, one of the physicians rounding who knew me and knew my history said that she and the other doctors knew I would not have chosen termination had I been pregnant. I’m not actually sure if that is the case.

Before DH and I embarked on the infertility journey, I knew many people who had had rough and dangerous pregnancies. Being a history buff, I also knew that the reality was prior to modern medicine, most women ended up dying from complications related to childbirth. One night, while discussing this – from reading what I considered nonsense by unattended birth advocates – he asked me what I would want if he were ever asked to choose. I didn’t even have to think about it very hard. I said, “Whichever of us has the best chance at living.”

Of course, there are situations where neither has a good chance of living. Having grown up in a family where miscarriage and stillbirth were openly discussed, I had no idea that most people were unaware of the possibility. Even before my own miscarriage, I never understood those who announced a pregnancy prior to the first trimester being over. (It’s kind off hard to hide, but I totally get why some women, in very specific circumstances, try to hide their pregnancies from the general outside world.)

Now, the reason I bring this up is all the rhetoric I have been seeing since the violent death at the hands of a crazed zealot of one of the last physicians who provided a very necessary, and life saving, procedure, Dr. George Tiller.

The misinformation surrounding the practice of late term abortions is, well, mind-blowing. Who on earth thinks that someone can carry a fetus for 6 to 8 months and suddenly decide that they have to have an abortion because it would be more convenient? First, the procedure is not without its own risks, but it is, in some cases, much safer than inducing labor. (The only legal option in certain backward states, mine, past week 22. Torturing women is much more important than their health where religion has influence.)

Who seeks late term abortions? Couples with wanted pregnancies who find themselves with a fetus that has died, is being eaten up with cancer, has no brain, or any number of anomalies that would mean birth was only a gateway to an immediate and painful death. There is a reason other than tradition that many cultures did not name the newborn.

Back to the question that the doctors think they knew the answer to, but I’m not so sure about. Would I have terminated? It would have depended on the answer to several questions:

  • Was the fetus at a point where viability was possible – even if it meant a very expensive NICU stay?
  • If we delayed, was it still possible to contain the cancer so that the fetus could develop for its best chance?
  • Has the cancer invaded the fetus and will it survive if it has?
  • How likely would I have been to die with or without treatment? (This answer I seem to have. The grade 3 tumor would have spread in a matter of weeks and possibly have killed me. It was moving that fast.)

I know that I have said I would give every last moment I have on this earth to have had a child with my husband. But, even I would not do this at any cost.

Ultimately, as devastating as it would have been, if the fetus had not been at viability, I think I would have terminated. I would rail against the universe, God, and all of creation for facing such a devastating choice. At least today I still have that choice. There are those who would not have given me a choice had I been pregnant. My life, to them is worthless in comparison to a fetus that would not have lived outside my soon to be cancer-ridden womb.

That is the world that the anti-choice brigade – so-called pro-life – wish to create. They are filled with such hatred for a woman’s life that the laws made make no recognition for whether a fetus is living or dead; a woman’s and fetus’s life are endangered and one can be saved; or, any other mitigating circumstance. I know. The laws in my state are that backwards and that cruel.

The proponents of this world use the rhetoric of hate by labeling physicians who perform a necessary and devastating surgery as murderers. They are as guilty as Roeder as far as I am concerned. For those who espouse the serious use of violence are guilty of violence. Continuous slandering of someone by such slogans as “Tiller the Killer” and other loathsome sayings are only adding fuel to an incendiary keg that is bound to go off from time to time in ways so violent and vile that most of the world will recoil.

I just pray that more doctors will step up to provide the compassionate service that those like Dr. Tiller provided. I know it takes a toll on those physicians as well quite separate from the attacks of the so-called pro-life movement. They see couples in a kind of hell most will never ever know. And, that there is one fewer experienced physician providing this service is a lessening of all who claim to have compassion and caring.

If you condemn what George Tiller did for his patients, I don’t want to live in the world you want to create and will fight you non-violently to my dying day.

Nadya Suleman / Doud / Gutierrez Octuplets You Are An Insult to Infertility Patients

Posted on by

No, you are an abomination and an aberration. You, in your selfishness, have endangered reproductive rights to millions of couples fighting to have just one or two children. I honestly have nothing but disdain for you, and pity for your children.

Some may say I am harsh in this, I don’t think so. It is women like this spoiled little brat who make reasonable men and women who wish to be parents look like wild-eyed maniacs.

Nadya Suleman you have done nothing but given worry-trolls and fear-mongerers another story to use in their arsenal against legitimate patients. You are absolutely a disturbed person. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Nothing. If the state of California leaves you unsupervised with your children I will forever know that the social work system there is broken beyond repair.

Who is this doctor? Who would, in a woman who supposedly had successful previous IVFs and is under 35 transfer – not implant – more than one embryo? Both ASRM and SART say no more than two at a time in a patient like this creature. You are supposed to be practicing sound medicine. There are times when it is appropriate to put more than 2 or 3 embryos in – but this person does not fit any of those criteria. She was a one embryo candidate from everything we have seen in the press. Of course, for all we know, it is all lies.

To all the doctors out there who are using the word “implant,” you and I know damn well you can’t implant an embryo. You transfer it in hopes it implants itself. Language matters and careless use of language will backfire. Do not give the lunatic “right-to-lifers” more ammunition. Believe me, if they ever get their way in regards to abortion, they will come after all reproductive technology.

Any woman who has more than one transferred who cannot face selective reduction has no business using IVF. I may sound harsh, but it is a reality that disaster can strike. You start with this technology and you have to be ready to deal wisely with its ramifications. Carrying octuplets is neither wise nor sane.

I am livid. A part of me wants to start a campaign of sending her boxes of dirty shoes – soles up – from the infertility community. But, I won’t do that as it would be petty. I knew what it meant – the whole meaning – when Bush got the shoe thrown at him. I also know you never leave your shoes soles up in an Arabic household.

This woman should be pilloried, but never used as an example. She is an aberration.

If your political creatures start making noises about regulations and legislation over this aberrant abomination, tell them the truth – this woman was insane and her doctor was incredibly irresponsible and should probably lose his license. This, of course, assumes the clinic used was even in the USA. It may not have been.

Though, a part of me wonders about someone with three last names in a short time (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090131/ap_on_re_us/octuplets) and such a checkered past. Was medical fraud involved? Will we know anytime soon? I can think of several fraudulent scenarios in this. None look kindly on this woman.

Border Security Gone Wild

Posted on by

– For Those Who Don’t Already Know

 

Who knew that knitter’s were a National Security Threat?

Though I don’t have cable, I do try and watch the Comedy Central web site for the best of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show. They have become an expanded version of the old Johnny Carson monologue on The Tonight Show.

How do most American’s get their news? Through comedians of course, otherwise, we would all cry!

Buy Local Food – Screw Monsanto, ADM, and Their Co-Horts

Posted on by

But, be aware that certain elements within the USDA and the state departments of agriculture work for big food rather than small farmers. A case in point:

http://www.morningjournal.com/articles/2008/12/03/news/mj309059.txt

Stories like this make me glad I live in Michigan where we have a long tradition of locally grown produce in the stores. Heck, even Kroger has signs proudly displaying when they have local potatoes, apples, asparagus, etc. Something seems askew elsewhere.

A local food cooperative was treated like drug dealers for a license violation. At least if the reports are true. And, if the reports are true? What are the authorities thinking – if they are thinking at all?

Um. Ok. It is fine to have licensing and safety regulations that are reasonable. It is so not fine to hold entire families with children at gunpoint. This is not a criminal masterwork.

Of course, some would say that the selling of raw milk to consumers who know the risks of consuming raw milk is a crime. Myself? I do not choose to consume raw milk – but I would never presume to prevent someone from doing so. I might make fun of someone who decided to suddenly keep a cow or goat without knowing what is really involved – like backyard chicken farms – but that is their choice.

Some are saying this is about some New World Order fascist takeover. I don’t. I say it is about greed. Plain and simple greed. Somewhere in the chain of command at one of the departments of agriculture involved somebody is getting their palm greased in order to cut out the competition to the big agricultural concerns.

Funny, I do believe that that Big Agriculture is threatened by the “Buy Local” movement in food!

So, I say, buy local, grow what you can, and harass any official that has decided to harass local producers and co-ops. Of course, I’ve been called a radical for having such strange ideas.

Conspiracy of Silence Against Childhood

Posted on by

I am thrilled to see the Catholic Church taken to task for conspiring to thwart criminal investigations in child sexual abuse for more than 100 years in the USA – even if it is just a class action suit.

Churches should be given no special privileges when it comes to circumventing legitimate police investigations. I suspect, however, that ultimately, this will lead to little more than a few dollars to the victims in the pockets of some victims.

Why aren’t the supervisors responsible, also known as bishops and cardinals, being prosecuted for such crimes as conspiracy to commit sexual assault on a minor, interfering with a police investigation, etc.?

Really, organized religion leads to nothing but corruption because the base nature of mankind is selfish and corrupt. The lack of transparency within the Catholic Church is part and parcel of the problem. But, well, too many people blindly follow what these old men say with no critical thinking. How else do you think they got away with this atrocity for so long?

Medical Industry and Legal Industry Reforms a Must – It’s all about insurance (Part 3)

Posted on by

One of the big problems the medical industry has is the unholy alliance the AMA had with the insurance industry “back in the day.” The medical insurers created an industry where they got a pool of monies to play with while (hopefully) rarely paying out to doctors, hospitals, etc.

Well, at first, the doctors and hospitals learned to use the system to finance their lifestyles – and research. It wasn’t all about making doctors rich, by the way. Most physicians really are about helping people. (There are exceptions, but a lot of that comes from the way medical schools beat up medical students.)

Well, time went on and some physicians who probably should not have been practicing – self-policing does not work in any industry – damaged patients in some horrendous ways. Malpractice lawyers are not the demons so many want to make them out to be. Most went after doctors who really were negligent – at first. This is where insurance came in.

The insurers saw an opportunity. They were already making money from the patients seeing doctors. Why not start making money from patients suing doctors? They started selling malpractice insurance. This created a spiral where people did not recognize the money for malpractice being paid out wasn’t just coming from physicians. Nope, it was coming from the overall insurance pool.

Lawyers, patients, and doctors, have been victimized by the insurance companies coming and going. And, all three have been foolish enough to believe that the other one is to blame.

How do we solve this problem?

  • First, acknowledge that some physicians should not be practicing medicine. There are doctors that all the doctors and nurses around them know should no longer be seeing patients. There is a culture that protects them. I always advise anyone looking for a specialist to ask a nurse where she (or her family) is going to have the same thing treated.
  • Second, recognize that lawyers and the court system – as currently configured – is not equipped to deal with these cases. This includes returning to the Medieval practice of really using a “jury of your peers.” Peers were those in the same profession or class who either knew the person or “best practices” and could make an informed judgment. (I would like to see patent cases be moved to such a form as well, but that is a separate rant on the over indulgence of industry.)
  • Third, create real policing of medical practice by people who are qualified to evaluate whether something is neglect, malicious, or just a mistake. This includes criminalizing certain types of medical malpractice. (This is something that should be rare, but just because someone is a doctor does not mean they are exempt from criminal neglect or maliciousness. Nurses and other medical practitioners should be included in this.)
  • Fourth, create a fund, as part of the health care package, that is used to compensate via treatment and necessary lifestyle adjustments for those things that are medical mistakes. This is one of the few areas where anything reasonable should be compensated. Especially damage to reproductive organs due to botched appendectomies, misuse of drugs, etc., for the funding of reproductive technology. It should also be used for required equipment and nursing care.

The real problems?

  • Doctors who believe they can do no wrong – or that everyone is out to get them.
  • Doctors who believe patients and lawyers are their enemies.
  • Lawyers who think they understand what it means to be dealing with life and death decisions in a matter of seconds.
  • The vested interests of the insurance companies who are currently the only winners in this game.

Until people understand that the insurance companies are the real issue here, well, we aren’t going to solve the real problem.