Category Archives: regulation

The Lady [sic] Demonstrates Her Critics’ Point

Posted on by
Reply

University of California, Berkeley’s, Associate Director for its Center for Equity, Gender & Leadership Genevieve Macfarlane Smith succeeded in this with her letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters section last Thursday. Smith began by complaining

Lawrence Krauss writes, “I have a hard time understanding how people can be so hurt by the use of some words and names.”

Then she proceeded to make Krauss’ point for him.

Take “illegal alien”: This term brands a person “illegal” and implies they’re not human but “alien.” Beyond dehumanizing, the term is imprecise: It implies criminality, but lacking immigration documents is a civil, not criminal, offense.

Of course, “illegal alien” does none of that. The term brands no one as illegal; the individual involved has made himself illegal by entering our nation illegally.

Nor does the term imply criminality. As Smith actually concedes, “lacking immigration documents—” being an illegal alien—is a civil offense: it’s simply illegal, with no implication of felonious or civil illegality.

Nor does the term imply that the illegal alien is in any way not human. Here are the American Heritage Dictionary‘s definitions of “alien:”

adj.
1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.
n.
Law
1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.

There’s nothing in there about the illegal alien being not human.

Smith then asked,

Still agree with Mr Krauss that reflection on language is a “waste of time” or “silly”?

Yep. Smith was making Krauss’ case. Unsatisfied, though, she dug a bit deeper.

Mr Krauss discusses efforts to replace “master/slave” from computer code with “primary/secondary.” … This type of language can signal that black people aren’t welcome.

I’ve worked in the tech industry for years. No one, not a single minority colleague, felt unwelcome from such terms. We all understood the context; we were software engineers and managers, not…social engineers. And context matters. More than Smith seems to understand.

Perhaps if Smith and her cohorts weren’t so desperate to change the ordinary meaning of the words of our American English language in order to support their quest for offense, her victims, the ones she’s pretending to want to protect (apparently because she considers them incapable of protecting themselves) would experience considerably less angst.

“Coy,” Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

The Biden-Harris administration, in its argument for the government’s appeal in the 8th Circuit of a trial court’s rulings in Religious Sisters of Mercy v Azar and Catholic Benefits Association v Azar, steadfastly refused to say whether, in fact, these entities would be subject to government suit were those entities, in fact, to refuse to provide and cover so-called “gender transition” procedures. The case and the government’s “enforcement” vagaries center on

how the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) interpret Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits discrimination by gender identity, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in relation to RFRA [Religious Freedom Restoration Act].

Just the News mildly referred to that as the government being coy.

The government’s attorney, Assistant US Attorney Ashley Chung, then went so far as to tacitly threaten the judges:

She warned the judges not to “open the floodgates to premature litigation” based on “uncertainty” over how agencies might respond to new legal interpretations or court rulings.

This is a cynical argument by Chung. The judges won’t be opening floodgates for “premature” litigation. HHS and EEOC already have opened those floodgates with their carefully thought out decision to be “uncertain” in their “interpretation” of Obamacare, Title VII, and associated regulations and to be vague on their enforcement procedures for those.

Another Reason

Posted on by
Reply

…to get Government—at the Federal and at the State level—out of the way of a free market for health care and for health care coverage, which must include price transparency if there’s to be true price and quality of product/service competition. This illustration is in Boston.

An Emergency Room visit to Massachusetts General Hospital for a particular problem covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts would cost the patient and his employer together nearly $950. In fairness to BCBSoM, some other providers of health coverage for the same problem at MassGen charge substantially the same total price. At Carney Hospital, just three miles away, though, the same problem with the same provider would be only a bit under $550—$400 less.

It gets more variable. An ER trip to MassGen for a patient with substantially the same problem and whose coverage was through an Aetna PPO would cost $2,170. At Carney the cost would be in the range of $550.

But never mind, Government Knows Better:

The Massachusetts Health Policy Commission…called for capping the prices of the state’s costliest hospitals.

No. Price caps provide no incentive to innovate, to improve quality, to lower prices. Secretive negotiations between health coverage providers and health providers provide no such incentives, either. Secretive pricing by health providers provides no incentives.

Competition among health coverage providers and among health providers provides those incentives because superior quality of care and lower prices are what attract customers, and open competition is what produces those outcomes. The lack is especially insidious with hospital ERs, since those “customers” are in dire straights and in no position to shop around.

Those folks (all partakers of health provision and health coverage provision, but especially prospective ER users) need to prior plan before the trip becomes necessary. That requires an ability to compare among health coverage providers and among health providers. That, in turn, requires price transparency among health coverage providers—not just for premiums charged the customer and his employer (which already are pretty visible), but the prices paid each of the hospitals in the area.

Transparency also requires hospitals to make their prices publicly available. An example of this is with Surgery Center of Oklahoma. This facility doesn’t have emergency room facilities, but their model is easily extensible to all hospital and all prompt care facilities.

Free Enterprise

Posted on by
Reply

The politicians populating Vermont’s State government don’t like it; they’re taking an overt step to bring the State’s economy under centralized control. These politicians are using the State’s insurance industry—already an industry with limited freedom to operate in all States, not just in Vermont—as their tool to do this.

Vermont is now one of the first states to require health insurers to pay for the costs associated with at-home COVID-19 tests, Governor Phil Scott (R) announced.

Yes, this is a Republican governor. A weak Republican governor, with a Progressive-Democrat State House of Representatives and State Senate.

Never mind that, if consumers in a free market environment wanted the tests covered by their insurers, competition would lead the insurers to cover them. Never mind, either, that that same competition would drive the cost of that coverage to its lowest level.

Instead, with this Government-driven requirement, coverage costs will be elevated, propped up by the artificial, Government-created demand. And, notwithstanding the disingenuous claim of the State’s Department of Financial Regulation Commissioner, Michael Pieciak, that the tests will be free, they will not only cost all Vermonters in the form of elevated premiums and/or limited quality of coverage elsewhere in the policies, all Vermonters will be paying for the tests of the few.

Socialism in action. Vermont businesses—insurers are just the camel’s nose—are free to produce whatever goods and services they choose, so long as Government politicians approve.

Big Progressive-Democrat Government

Posted on by
Reply

A Rasmussen poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose the socialism in the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

That’s encouraging, but I have some concerns about the policies anyway, given that they’re being jammed through without regard for the views of the government’s employers.

The socialism aspect of the Biden-Harris and Progressive-Democratic Party policies is less a matter of the raw spending and usurious taxes in them much more a matter of the strings attached to the spending and of who gets (punitively) taxed.

The strings attached would give the Federal government more control over the States and over what businesses are allowed to produce and the prices they charge. The proposed tax structure would give the Federal government more indirect control by “encouraging” businesses to comport themselves IAW Government wishes.

That control is the essence of socialism, whether the control is through outright ownership or through controlling production permissions.

The spendthriftiness should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The tax distortions should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The increased Government control should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

Unfortunately, dangerously, each of the three individually (as well as together) are tightly aligned with Progressive-Democratic Party goals of spending to buy votes, taxing the Evil Rich to virtue-signal for votes, and to outright accrete power to Party.