A Failed Culture

That’s what exists in the State Department, has existed for administration after administration, and has been exposed lately by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer’s remark earlier in the week about State Department personnel: I think that they should either get with the program or they can go.  The precious ones in the culture are out in force.

Some examples, with my attitude…exposed [link added]:

This ban, which can only be lifted under conditions which will be difficult or impossible for countries to meet….

Then these self-important ones should stop wasting time on their hurt feelings over not being personally consulted and spend their energies instead on helping those countries meet the conditions.  Whether or not they should have been consulted is an entirely separate argument, but the boss had and has no obligation to consult with them (see below) for all that it might be a good idea to do so.  Even at that, though, “consult” does not mean “get permission from.”

“I hope the White House is not suggesting that the officials would be fired,” [John Bellinger, State Department and National Security Council legal adviser in Bush the Younger’s administration] said….

This is completely disingenuous. “You should resign” is not at all a threat of being fired.

…the dissent channel is “a long-respected format” for diplomats and other State Department officials to express disagreement.

Indeed it is. However, it’s not a channel for employees to veto their boss’ instructions.

“It’s a specific example of the total lack of understanding, let alone respect of basic democratic norms,” a second official said.

A carefully anonymous official, notice. With good reason, too; he doesn’t understand that the organization isn’t a democracy—no organization other than a nation as a whole can be—it has a boss and employees.

A Large Misunderstanding

A Wall Street Journal article about Breitbart writer and speaker Milo Yiannopoulos and his impact on college campus views of free speech opened with a widespread misunderstanding.

The tour by Milo Yiannopoulos is sparking reaction from more groups than any recent speaker has on college campuses, heightening tensions between free speech and public safety.

There is no tension between free speech and public safety, though: there is no public safety without free speech.  The relationship between free speech and public safety is not only—not even primarily—concerned with people whose feelings get hurt, or people legitimately insulted, and who then act out emotionally and dangerously.  The relationship is centered on Government’s ability to control what will be spoken or done and the threat that those abilities represent to public safety.

It’s only necessary to look at the vociferous protests from the Left and from the Right against what each side saw in its time as Government overreach to see the relationship.

Again: there is no public safety without free speech.  Full stop.

Whose Seat Is It, Again?

A “journalist” asked then-Senate candidate Scott Brown (R, MA) whether he was willing to sit in Teddy Kennedy’s seat and block the Democrats’ health care bill.  Brown answered in pertinent part,

With all due respect, it’s not the Kennedy’s seat, it’s not the Democrats’ seat, it’s the people’s seat.

What brings that up is Senator Jeff Merkley’s (D, OR) claim in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s announcement of his nominee for the Supreme Court, 10th Circuit Court Judge Neil Gorsuch.

This is a stolen seat. This is the first time a Senate majority has stolen a seat[.]

Stolen from whom?  Who owns this seat, exactly?  In the feverish minds of the Democrats in the Senate, a Supreme Court seat belongs to the Democrats, or maybe if we take Merkeley’s claim literally, it belongs to the minority party.  Or the seat belongs to a Liberal/Progressive wing of…somebody.  (Never mind that the liberal wing of the Supreme Court doesn’t even support the Constitution, holding that it lives through judicial rulings and not through Article V.)

And this, from Juan Williams, author of the piece at the second link:

[I]f a liberal now sitting on the court retires or dies and Trump has another nomination, get ready for fireworks if not all out war on the nomination.

Because somehow, that seat belongs to a liberal, if not a Democrat, or the “right” to pick who sits in that seat “belongs” to Democrats or other liberals.

And here’s that so-familiar view of morality, this time as articulated by Williams, and concerning the Republicans’ block of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) nominee, DC Circuit Court Judge Merrick Garland, made in a Presidential election year.  Keep in mind that the purpose of the block was because Senate Republicans believed that the people in the upcoming election should have a voice in who the nominee should be.

Turnabout is fair play, acted on with glee in these politically polarized times.

There it is: the morality of a behavior isn’t at all intrinsic in the behavior, it’s strictly in whether someone else did it or is doing it.  Morality is strictly situational, the Democrat says, it’s whatever is politically convenient in the present case.  And that’s the immorality that the Democrats are applying to justify their opposition in the present case: payback’s a bitch, and we’re gonna be bitches.  Nothing at all on whether Gorsuch is qualified for the Supreme Court.

And this little detail.  By the Democrats’ logic, the vacant seat—Scalia’s seat in the Democrat lexicon—belongs to the conservative wing of…somebody, or it belongs to a Conservative, if not a Republican, or the “right” to pick who sits in it “belongs” to Republicans or other Conservatives.  Yet these Democrats in that election year demanded to install their left of center candidate into “Scalia’s seat,” and they’re determined to block the Republicans’ “right” to pick “their” judge for the seat.

But the question of whose seat the vacant one on the Supreme Court is—indeed whose seat each of the nine is—has been answered quite clearly, and the answer was plainly stated in the block of Garland.  Just as with all of the seats anywhere in the Federal government, we the People own the seats on the Supreme Court, including any vacant ones.  Not Democrats.  Not Republicans.  We the People.

Did I say feverish minds?  No, that’s wrong.  These Democrats know exactly what they’re doing, and the sad thing about it is that they’re doing it anyway.

Democrats Abscond

Recall the Democratic Party’s virulent and overt attack on democracy in Wisconsin and Indiana too few years ago.  Now the Democratic Party has spread its assault to the United States Senate.

Led by Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D, OR), the Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee, the body doing the initial vetting of Senator Tom Price (R, GA) for Secretary of Health and Human Services and Steve Mnuchin  for Secretary of the Treasury, are boycotting the committee—absconding from their duties there—for the explicit and sole purpose of preventing the committee from going about its business.

This is a shameful attack on democracy, and it demonstrates the Democratic Party’s autocratic fabric: if Democrats can’t have their way, they’ll shut down democracy altogether.

Here are the disgraceful Democrats on the Committee who are refusing their duty:

  • Ron Wyden, OR, Ranking Member
  • Debbie Stabenow, MI
  • Maria Cantwell, WA
  • Bill Nelson, FL
  • Bob Menendez, NJ
  • Tom Carper, DE
  • Ben Cardin, MD
  • Sherrod Brown, OH
  • Michael Bennet, CO
  • Bob Casey, PA
  • Mark Warner, VA
  • Claire McCaskill, MO

Mark their names well, and take appropriate action in the elections of 2018, 2020, and 2022.  These persons are unfit for government service.

Free Markets and Medical Care

Under Obamacare we have no free market in medical insurance or in medical care itself.  In fact, before Obamacare we had no free markets in those two industries, either: individual States controlled the premiums they would permit (within bands, but it was the States’ bands) and the measures required to be covered within each premium band.  Medical care was subject to what doctors and hospitals would be reimbursed by the insurance companies.  And insurance policies could not be sold across State borders, for all that insurers like Blue Cross\Blue Shield could sell substantially similar policies in various States: if someone moved, they could not take their original policy with them—even if they’d gotten it through their employer and in the new State they worked for that same employer—they had to buy the new policy.

But what about an all-cash market, where doctors and hospitals name their prices, and patients can shop around—a truly free market for medical care that bypasses health insurance and that thereby pushes a truly free market for actual health insurance rather than the health coverage welfare program we have under Obamacare?  Reason had some thoughts on such an outlandish thing a short bit ago.

….costs [as they stand today] are completely contingent on a wide variety of factors, especially what insurance plan you have or whether you have insurance at all. More recently, I’ve had the same problem trying to price out basic blood tests (a lipid panel) in southwestern Ohio, as simple and mechanical a procedure as exists. Without clear pricing, we’ll never get far in radically improving the cost and quality of care for non-emergency services. In areas that are not traditionally covered by insurance—think Lasik surgery, cosmetic dentistry, and plastic surgery—a very different model obtains and you see exactly the sort of market-driven efficiencies that we see in virtually every other part of our commercial lives. The surgeon Jeffrey Singer has written about how various insurance contracts bar him from even discussing discounted cash payments with patients who announce they have insurance.

Regarding that bit about Lasik: my wife had Lasik surgery on both eyes several years ago, pre-Obamacare.  Health insurance didn’t cover the procedure, so we paid roughly $2,500 per eye to get the work done.

Today, Lasik still isn’t covered—it’s still a cash-only procedure—there are lots more eye doctors qualified to do the surgery and doing it, even though there was no real shortage of such eye doctors at the time of my wife’s surgery, and the necessarily competitive environment of such a cash-basis product has driven prices down markedly, while improving the quality of the procedure.  The procedure can cost as little as $300 per eye, depending on what the patient wants done.  Notice two things about that last bit.  What the patient wants done, not what an insurer is willing to pay for having done.

What [gets] done: a potful of things available to do today that weren’t available those years ago, driven by competition as forcefully as the price has been.  Here are two examples.  Bladeless LASIK procedures, which use a second laser not used in bladed procedures with additional benefits like faster and more pleasant recovery.  Tailoring the laser that does the actual reshaping of the eye’s cornea to deal with microscopic imperfections in the cornea’s shape rather than older procedures that did a broad-brush reshaping.  In those days, vision would be markedly improved, but the tailoring was limited to optimizing one eye for reading and the other eye for distance viewing.  A tailored laser procedure today (some procedures are called Wavefront technology) much more accurately reshapes the cornea to improve night vision (remember the night glare/halo effect that used to be a common side effect?).

Hospitals, too, as the Oklahoma Surgery Center is demonstrating.  They price their procedures right up front—and their costs are far lower than industry standards.  For instance,

$19,000 for [a patient’s] whole-knee replacement, a discount of nearly 50% on what [the patient] expected to be charged at his local hospital. And that price would include everything from airfare to the organization’s only facility, in Oklahoma City, to medications and physical therapy. If unforeseen complications arose during or after the procedure, the Surgery Center would cover those costs. [The patient] wouldn’t see another bill.

Pricing competition, and importantly, pricing competition without the government fetters of regulations that have little to do with the actual medical care being provided.  There’s more room for pricing competition—which improves the quality and technologies available as part of that competition—when the medical provider doesn’t have to spend payroll on non-medical folks: compliance personnel.

Go figure.