tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post2833796259763160255..comments2024-03-28T01:27:23.408-04:00Comments on Health Care Renewal: Congressman Darrell Issa: FDA's email monitoring of "whistleblowers" communicating with Congress was illegalRoy M. Poses MDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00497209843184497847noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-27443653169070024932012-02-18T08:48:03.404-05:002012-02-18T08:48:03.404-05:00It behooves Rep. Issa to investigate the deception...It behooves Rep. Issa to investigate the deception and fraud of the HIT industry. <br /><br />Simply follow the money and ask, why is the FDA not regulating the devices produced by the HIT industry and what did the Secretary of HHS say to the leadership of the FDA on same issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-54135855165793349712012-02-14T11:01:04.324-05:002012-02-14T11:01:04.324-05:00Unless a judge says it, you are not in violation o...<i>Unless a judge says it, you are not in violation of any law not matter what the law says on its face.</i><br /><br />Agreed, but again, and hopefully a judge will realize, these are not employees of a private company.<br /><br />They are government employees (i.e., they work for *us* - the public), and their reporting of 'anomalies' to Congress is in reality intra-governmental InformaticsMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994321680366572701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-71826314829329110262012-02-13T20:40:08.105-05:002012-02-13T20:40:08.105-05:00Well, let's hope those guilty of breaking the ...Well, let's hope those guilty of breaking the law are punished instead of those trying to protect patients.<br /><br />I have one issue with Rep. Issa's letter. Even though he helpks write the laws, he is not the arbiter of the laws, the courts are. Unless aa judge says it, you are not in violation of any law not matter what the law says on its face.<br /><br />Good luck with that, Afraidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-59951501445675342002012-02-13T15:55:21.298-05:002012-02-13T15:55:21.298-05:00Specifically, see paragraph 2 and footnote.
-- S...Specifically, see paragraph 2 and footnote. <br /><br />-- SSInformaticsMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994321680366572701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-44062448613584020912012-02-13T15:44:40.615-05:002012-02-13T15:44:40.615-05:00So, is Rep. Issa saying that there's some kind...<i>So, is Rep. Issa saying that there's some kind of exception to this if the [federal] employees are communicating with Congress? </i><br /><br />Yes indeed. See the letter.<br /><br />-- SSInformaticsMDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03994321680366572701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9551150.post-52482510768335517402012-02-13T12:38:00.587-05:002012-02-13T12:38:00.587-05:00It has already been settled that employers can loo...It has already been settled that employers can look at what employees write on company-, or agency-, owned devices at will. <br /><br /><br />So, is Rep. Issa saying that there's some kind of exception to this if the employees are communicating with Congress? How does that work in practice, and where in the law can I read of this exception?<br /><br />BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com