Monthly Archives: March 2020

State Governments and Socialism

Posted on by
Reply

A current government move to control the means of production—classic socialism when the controls are widespread—is this, involving what’s left of our nation’s insurance industry, at the State level.

In at least three states, lawmakers have proposed legislation to force insurers to pay billions of dollars for business losses tied to government-ordered shutdowns.

Never mind what already agreed policies say. To Hell with signed contracts. Government men Know Better, and being above petty commitments themselves, can’t conceive the idea that commitments actually matter in a free society, in a free market economy.

Some regulators have declared moratoriums on cancellations and nonrenewals of policies.

This is Government assuming control of the insurance companies and dictating what they will produce.

Here is the blatantness of the power grab made manifest:

In Massachusetts, state Senator James [Jamie] Eldridge (d) said that the depth of the coronavirus pandemic has made bold legislative action a necessity. A bill he has proposed would require insurers to pay so-called business-interruption claims to small businesses even if policies contain virus exclusions.

Insurers get reimbursed later? No, they’ll have to apply to Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democratic government-appointed insurance commissioner for that, and the commissioner would be authorized to bill those same insurers, “possibly over years,” to cover the payouts. I am altering the deal; pray I don’t alter it any further.

Of course, all of this is for the best of reasons and soundest of motives. For some politicians, that’s actually true, too, regardless of the misguided nature of their actions.

For most, though, this is just another implementation of Progressive-Democrats’ mantra of never letting a crisis go to waste; they’re just too useful for expanding government power.

Progressive-Democrats and the Law

Posted on by
Reply

And contracts.  Since the SARS epidemic of some years ago, insurers have declined to cover losses related to virus or bacteria damage, and they wrote their policies to that effect. State regulators—who controlled and still control the structure of insurance policies and the premiums allowed to be charged for those policies outside Obamacare—agreed.

However.

New Jersey Assemblyman Roy Freiman, a Democrat, introduced a bill that would retroactively rewrite interruption coverage contracts and force insurers to foot some losses for any policyholder with fewer than 100 full-time employees.

Contracts be damned. They don’t fit the Progressive-Democrat agenda, so by Progressive-Democrat-run Government fiat, they must be tossed.

Here’s the kicker, though.

Mr Freiman says he doesn’t know if he has the legal authority to do this, but he says he doesn’t care.

The law be damned too—it’s in the Progressive-Democrat’s way. Don’t get enough of his fellows in the legislature to agree with him and change the law. Don’t get actual voters to agree with him and so get legislators to stand with him to change the law.

No. The Progressive-Democrat already Knows Better; everyone should just get out of his way so he can toss the law without any silly delays from the ignorant unwashed.

In Defense of an Election Defeat

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-Congressman Dan Lipinski (D, IL) lost his State’s primary election largely—almost entirely—because of his pro-life position on abortion.  He wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal explaining how that loss came about:

I faced it [the question of whether he should have changed his abortion stance to win the primary] head-on in my statement. I defended my pro-life position, which is rooted in both my Catholic faith and science. “I could never give up protecting the most vulnerable human beings in the world, simply to win an election,” I said. “My faith teaches, and the Democratic Party preaches, that we should serve everyone, especially the most vulnerable. …”

Then he closed his piece with this:

[P]arty leaders and presidential candidates refuse to tolerate anyone who doesn’t support abortion on demand at any time, paid for by taxpayers.
The Democratic Party asserts that its highest priority right now is to defeat President Trump. The party’s treatment of pro-life voters belies that claim.

Party’s treatment of Party non-believers doesn’t belie the claim so much as it makes the claim harder to satisfy. After all, babies don’t vote, but pro-life citizens of all political bent do.

Kudos to this rare Democrat who put integrity and honor and respect for life above winning an election.

FDA’s Drug Approvals

Posted on by
Reply

Charles Hooper and David Henderson are on the right track.

The Federal government requires pharmaceutical companies to prove that their drugs are both safe and effective before putting them on the market. Before 1962, companies needed to prove only safety. While there is some appeal to this two-hurdle approach, evidence suggests that there is only a slight benefit and a tremendous cost. With the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the world, there has never been a better time to revoke the Food and Drug Administration’s efficacy requirement.

I suggest the FDA move to a two-stage approval process. The first stage should focus on safety: does the drug do no harm, at least compared with the condition it’s aimed at treating (because all drugs have side effects).  Once it’s determined the drug is safe, it should be released to the market, limited strictly to on-label use. Let prescribing doctors and patients determine whether the drug is useful, let market forces do their trick. The FDA’s imprimatur for this stage, should be limited to “safe as prescribed, not determined to be effective.”

The second stage should proceed without delay, overlapping the first stage to the extent feasible; in this stage, investigative focus should be on efficacy—does the drug actually have the effect on its target condition that’s intended. Only after the trials associated with this stage have been successfully completed could the drug receive its full-up FDA stamp of approval—and authorization for use, under prescription, off-label.

This modification to the pre-1962 requirement would cheapen development, and it would provide more drugs of greater utility faster to market and to the doctors and patients who use them.

Joe Biden’s…Politics

Posted on by
Reply

Karl Rove had a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and he had this comment about the situation in which Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden finds himself:

Mr Biden must also decide soon whether to keep moving left or emphasize that he’s a more centrist [Progressive-]Democrat. Picking the first course would suggest that he believes victory this fall depends on mobilizing Senator Bernie Sanders’s [I,VT] backers by agreeing with many of the Vermonter’s views.
Picking the second would indicate that he thinks the key to victory lies with suburbanites who swung to Democrats in 2018, and that he’ll get the Bernie vote by being the alternative to Mr Trump, not the instrument to enact a socialist agenda.
But Mr Biden may already have moved too far left for some suburbanites….

Biden can’t tack back in the more-or-less general direction of the center (whether Party’s center, or America’s); to do so would utterly destroy his credibility. Both Party’s left and those suburbanites would see the move as blowing with the political-convenience winds inconstancy.

And so would the American electorate at large.

Biden is stuck.