Tag Archives: responsibilities

Protests

Posted on by
Reply

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says that NFL players should voice their concerns about racial injustice without “alienating” people.

Whatever the players were trying to do in drawing attention to these issues, it’s gone another way now in that people have stopped listening to each other.

Indeed, the players’ “protest” could go no other way since their path centered on attacking our nation’s flag and anthem and insulting those who fought for what these symbolize.

The best form of protest against racial injustice, or any other form of injustice, is to succeed, loudly and publicly, despite the bigotry.  Like folks like Condoleezza Rice; Muhammad Ali; Martin Luther King, Jr; Jackie Robinson; and a potful of others, including old, dead guys like Martin Luther, Galileo, et al., have done.

The second best form of protest is to protest the injustice itself rather than going off message to protest via something else in an effort to cutesify the message.

Civil War

Posted on by
1

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy demanded that Catalonia “clarify” its position following its referendum on independence from Spain following Catalonian President Carles Puigdemont’s declaration of Catalonian independence and his immediate suspension of that in favor of a period of negotiation with Madrid.

However, Rajoy’s pretended confusion says volumes about him without adding a syllable to the subject’s discussion.  His pretense is nothing but an attempt to obfuscate and distract from his deliberate decision to use violence to suppress a referendum when he could have peacefully arrested the referendum leaders in the aftermath of its defeat at the polls.

Rajoy’s preference for violence and its import are confirmed by Rajoy’s subsequent step.

[T]he Spanish government triggered the first step toward invoking Article 155 in the name of preserving the unity of the nation.

Article 155 of the Spanish constitution—a brief provision modeled on a similar measure in Germany’s constitution—allows the central government to suspend some of the powers of a region under specific conditions.

This is just a naked exercise in power and not at all a willingness to accept—or even begin discussing acceptance of—Puigdemont’s olive branch.

Madrid, by acting in ways that would force a civil war seems more interested in that than in any peaceful resolution.  Indeed, Rajoy is seeking to preempt peace.

This is about Rajoy’s ego and his demand for power and the abject surrender of his enemies.

Progressive-Democrats and Harvey Weinstein

Posted on by
1

I’m not going to comment on Weinstein’s guilt or innocence—after all, all we know is what the press has chosen to publish on that particular: women’s accusations and other Weinstein associates’ professions ignorance of his behavior (while lately claiming to be appalled after the Left disputed their ignorance).  I’m a throwback—innocent until proven guilty at trial, not guilt by woman’s accusation.

What interests me in this case is the status of Weinstein’s donations to Progressive-Democrat candidates for office.

Some have kept the money and are staying quiet about it: the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees, and Hillary Clinton, for instance.  Some have returned the money to Weinstein or to his donating organization and chosen not to wallow in their martyrdom about it.

However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), Senator Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ), Senator Al Franken (D, MN), Senator Martin Heinrich (D, MN), Richard Blumenthal (D, CT), and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) have chosen to give money equivalent to the donation amounts they received from Weinstein to charity.

Notice that: they’re not returning the money.  No, they’re touting their alleged generosity in this scandal by making tax deductible donations with this tainted money.  They’re pocketing some of that Weinstein money and making us pay, with our tax money, for the “donations.”

Hmm….

Health Plan Coverage and Contraception

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has noted that the Trump administration has taken regulatory action to reduce, if not eliminate (the Supreme Court still has to do its job vis-à-vis a Little Sisters of the Poor case, as does Congress legislatively, contra a short handful of Republicans who prefer Obamacare intact over any step toward getting rid of it), the requirement that health plan providers provide contraception to women at no cost to those women coverees and do so regardless of any question of conscience or religious tenet.

Naturally, Progressive-Democrats and the Left generally have their collective panties in a wedgie over that.  However, they carefully ignore certain inconvenient facts.

One inconvenience is the actual cost of contraception—to the user, not the rest of us who must pay for these “free” items.  Contraceptive pills can be had at places like Walmart for $9/mo, vaginal contraceptives are cheaper, condoms (don’t men have a role here, too?) are $6.50 the dozen.  These are not prices that will shatter anyone’s piggy bank.

Contraceptives are used to treat medical conditions, and they can be terribly expensive?  That’s the other inconvenience.  No they aren’t; those aren’t contraceptives.  They’re medications used for treating a medical condition; they happen to have a (if not the) major side effect of being anti-conceiving.  Insurance plans already covered such meds, and Obamacare could have, too, but the Progressive-Democratic Party eschewed that when they rammed through Obamacare.

In the end, there’s no reason anyone should pay for contraceptives other than the users.  Full stop.

Two Health Insurance Markets?

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal has misunderstood the situation and the proposal [emphasis added].

President Donald Trump’s executive order on health insurance, the most significant step so far to put his stamp on health policy, is designed to give more options to healthy consumers. It also could divide the insurance market in two.

What Trump is purportedly going to do with his Executive Order is

  • instruct[] federal agencies to loosen rules on health plans that the administration says have driven up premiums and reduced insurance offerings
  • direct the Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury Departments to lay the groundwork for the growth of association health plans, coverage that would have fewer mandated benefits than many current plans available to small employers and individuals [and] that wouldn’t be subject to the full range of ACA requirements, such as the mandated package of benefits.
  • departments, in addition, will be told to take steps to expand the availability of short-term medical plans …  allow people to once again buy plans in that category that could last for almost a year.

However, rather than create two health insurance markets, these actions would do no more than begin to create one health insurance market.  There is no extant health insurance market; there is nothing present to become part of “two markets.”  What we have presently is neither insurance nor a market for it.  What we have is a health coverage welfare program that has some (very poor) options from which we’re required to select one for ourselves.

The beginnings of a health insurance market, in addition to being an actual market for health insurance, would, though, lessen the importance of the mandated welfare program—to the benefit of all of us, including those trapped in that welfare program.