Tag: laws

D-TV Switch

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

That would be D as in "Delay " not D as in digital.

I have had the opportunity to drive to work for the last couple of days and have been listening to the radio as they discussed this issue. I used to wonder why television stations should be forced to switch to digital signals. Now I recognize that Congress has been holding them back from switching to digital signals exclusively. That leaves me with the question of why it is so important that everybody be able to receive a television signal.

I know I’m odd in the fact that I never watch television (since the middle of 2000), but I really don’t understand why television stations should be forced to serve people through analog. Some will argue that television is an important news source. I argue that the "news" that comes on television is somewhere between uninformative and misinformative most of the time. Some will argue that the entertainment is important. Though I find little television entertainment worth watching (yes, I still do have a vague idea of what’s offered), none of it is necessary and why should Congress be involved in mandating our entertainment options? (I can’t seem to find that section in my pocket Constitution.) Next thing you know, Uncle Sam will be giving away 5 free movie tickets per person per year – like they do in New Zealand (I may be wrong on the exact quantity).

Considering what I heard about how much cheaper it is for stations to broadcast in digital I would bet that, if left to themselves, the television broadcasters would figure out a way to offer the financial incentive necessary to get their customers to switch to digital. But that would be a free market and <sarcasm>we wouldn’t want to try that – free market’s aren’t stable.</sarcasm>

Tags change, change congress, free markets, laws, media, television

National

FOCA

Post author By David
Post date January 16, 2009
No Comments on FOCA

My sister-in-law suggested that her generally apolitical blog was not the place to engage in a debate on abortion. She’s probably right, but such a debate fits just fine here. In many ways the debate on abortion is settled. An absolute ban on abortion is not likely to ever be a reality in this nation and truly unrestricted access to abortion is also a very low probability. Despite heated rhetoric, the fact is that both sides are entrenched and committed to making incremental gains related tot his ever simmering topic. Camille’s post was specifically about fighting the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which Obama told Planned Parenthood he would sign as his first act as President. I think we can be very confident that it will not be his first act (because the economy is his first priority now) but that is no consolation to those who oppose this bill.

As always, I like to start with the actual legislation in question whenever possible. The claim by opponents is that this would eliminate all state and local statutes against any abortion. The text of the bill states:

Congress finds the following:

. . .

(4) The Roe v. Wade decision carefully balanced the rights of women to make important reproductive decisions with the state’s interest in potential life. Under Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy is absolute only prior to fetal viability, with the state permitted to ban abortion after fetal viability except when necessary to protect the life or health of a woman.

. . .

SEC. 4. INTERFERENCE WITH REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH PROHIBITED.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not–

(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to choose–

(A) to bear a child;
(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or
(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman;

(emphasis added)

Sounds like the claim by the bills opponents is a bit overstated.

Those who support the bill obviously believe that this would remove some state and local restrictions on abortion that are unconstitutional. The problem here is that the Constitution has no position on the issue of abortion. The only restrictions on abortion related legislation are rooted in supreme court opinions. All those state and local regulations that push the boundaries are challenged in court. The language of this bill is so vague that it only reinforces the message that is supposedly set by existing rulings. In other words, all the laws that they expect to remove can already be challenged, and any that would be upheld still could be upheld when challenged.

What this bill really accomplishes is to place in a statute what has already been placed in precedent. Perhaps this is an admission by abortion proponents that the ruling in Roe v Wade is a lousy ruling that amounts to an opinion not grounded in law. Anyone who has actually read Roe can see that it’s a huge logical leap from any law then existing.

My position is that FOCA is meaningless at best and reinforces the most illegal Supreme Court ruling I have ever read at worst. After having actually read the text of FOCA (it’s not very long) if you still want to sign the petition that Camille linked to, please do. I did.

Tags connections, issues, laws, Obama, Supreme Court, unconstitutional

National State

“Free Market” Health Care

The call for Lawyers to join health-reform efforts was a not so subtle reminder to me about how "free" our health care market is currently. We can’t really pretend that the cost of services or the services rendered are determined by patients and providers. In fact, they are not even determined by a combination of patients, providers, and insurance interests.

Malpractice lawsuits, whether as threat or reality, skew a provider’s treatment decisions to the legal safe side, members of the Legislature’s Health Care System Reform Task Force were told Tuesday. That approach, in turn, adds to the amount of redundant testing and is a significant but so far unaddressed factor in the reform process.

The cost of malpractice-insurance premiums for providers also is rising rapidly, Rep. Gregory Bell, R-Fruit Heights, and an attorney, told fellow task force members.

We have developed a pricing and practice environment based on a staggering concoction of laws, medical knowledge, middlemen, and advertising. Patients may demand unnecessary services or medications based on what they hear from advertisements. They may also have unreasonable expectations regarding how flawless our medical system is or should be – in other words, they may feel entitled to compensation for unavoidable tragedies. Governments step in to define what "unavoidable" means by specifying standards of practice which may bear little connection to medical necessity. Insurance companies can, by choice or accident, inflate the costs by demanding standards of practice and levels of compensation that can’t possibly take into account all the factors that should define the practice of health care and the commensurate compensation for care.

Care must cost more when malpractice insurance rates rise. Prices will increase when the salaries and profits of insurance companies must also be covered in the process of receiving health care. Checks against unnecessary care will disappear when those receiving care are not sensitive to the costs of individual procedures. Medical decisions will be skewed when manufacturers provide kickbacks to doctors and advertise their wares directly to customers who have no medical background.

While we use the Brass Serpent (the Nehushtan) as the symbol for the field of medicine we might find it convenient to use the Hydra as a symbol of the cost of health care.

The Hydra - photo by Craig Stephen
Hydra – photo by Craig Stephen

Somehow we need to slay this monster but while the sword of government may have a place in the battle it is not sufficient to complete the task – by itself the sword of government makes the monster more dangerous.

Tags Deseret News, economics, free markets, government, health care, issues, laws

culture

Equal Before the Law

In Sunday school today we were talking, among other things, about the freedom of conscience that was protected under Nephite law. The teacher (I can’t remember his name since it was our first week in a new ward) made the statement that all men were equal before the law. The thought that followed in my mind was that this was the highest equality we should strive for in society – that all men would be equal before the law. We need not seek for all men to be equal in material posessions, or in educational attainment, but only that all be treated equally in the eyes of the law and that there be no legal basis for any kind of discrimination with regards to the various kinds of opportunity that a person might seek.

Tags laws, liberty, religion