<$BlogRSDUrl$>

30 July 2023

Supreme Court Violates Precedents and Sets New Ones 

Ironically, the Court acted at the end of the 2022-23 term to set a few new precedents that contravened previous ones. Moreover, it is thought that the Chief Justice insisted on writing some of the opinions himself to soften the language that would have been used by the other five Justices in the majority (as reflected in their concurring opinions).

The opinions of the conservative super majority in the abortion, affirmative action, and First Amendment cases display how political the Supreme Court has become as a result of Presidential appointments during the Trump administration. That was a period of determined pandering to the resentful feelings of a minority of the voting public. Those citizens, of course, are entitled to their belief that the people who have often succeeded in tempering the government’s discriminatory actions have profited at the expense of those who think they are getting “the short end of the stick.”

This grudge really derives from their zero-sum philosophy of politics. The Republican Party they support has become beholden to the segment of society that believes that the national community overpays those who manage its affairs, including business executives, government regulators, academics, and providers of professional services. They see themselves, in the advertising lingo of W.W. Grainger, Inc., as “the ones who get it done.” They believe they would get things done more effectively, and possibly more lucratively, with no supervision from their “superiors.” 

\In fact, the structure of a liberal democracy, coupled with the pervasiveness of modern communications technology, facilitates a takeover by authoritarian rulers who can mobilize even a minority to take advantage of an outdated electoral system to install themselves in power.  Demagogues consolidate their control of a formal democracy by shaping the judicial system to favor changes to the established set of government principles that feed the prejudices of their supporters (cf. Netanyahu’s Israel). That is what the recent Supreme Court decisions referred to above do.    

15 July 2023

Republican Schizophrenia 

The Republican Party that has survived the winnowing it suffered under the Trump Presidency Is resultantly dominated by politicians who have abandoned any policy objective but the furtherance of their own careers. Success in winning voter support was gained in 2016 by satisfying the frustration of a near majority of citizens with their perceived loss of control over their financial and civic affairs to wealthier and better educated “elites.” If more broad minded voters are careless of the need to act vigilantly during another presidential election, they will abdicate again their influence over federal government policy.

What remains of the Republican Party is a coterie of politicos who champion the personal needs and priorities of the large number of people who place their personal interest above the general welfare. But when challenged by rivals who seek to serve the common good, they counter by arguing that their opponents advocate sacrificing their supporters’ personal ability to pursue material success to the collective interests of disadvantaged segments of the population.

Those erstwhile victors have transformed the Republican Party into an alliance of single-minded gamers whose political objective is to make a comfortable living. The means for accomplishing that are by offering to use the tools of government to promote the narrow interests of each individual member of the nation, not the nation as a whole. Those interests can be defined independently of the rest of citizens and must maximize an individual’s perceived likelihood of obtaining an advantage in the zero-sum game of life.

The perverse philosophy of these Republicans is that only those voters who subordinate the general welfare to their own success constitute a reliable democratic electoral base. Unfortunately, it takes an evangelistic effort to remind the populace of their stake in making the government work equitably for everyone.

Liberal democratic government is not a market—not of ideas nor of individual interests. It must have principles and ideals. Some deride that philosophy by sarcastically calling it “woke.” Others in the Republican Party also distrust the altruism that characterized the founders of the American republic.  Liberal democracy always benefits from vigorous debate between at least two parties who share a commitment to advancing general over narrow individual rights.

Thankfully, the dominance of a group of leaders who lack that shared interest may have been only brief. There can be no failure constantly to champion the common interest, by all principal political parties, if the American experiment is to continue.

07 July 2023

MyChart Billing Pros and Cons 

The healthcare providers of Johns Hopkins Medicine (and eventually, for sure, the rest of medical practitioners everywhere) have decided that the convenience that modern communications technology has granted their patients deprives their professional expertise and reputation for customer service of adequate compensation.  They have decided to charge fees for many of these remote electronic consultations.

Some of the aging and, therefore, more medically challenged yet technologically sophisticated people that health care practitioners serve have apparently abused MyChart by using its up-to-now free messaging feature to avoid having to visit their doctor’s office when they have a health problem that used to require a billable examination and/or personal treatment.  Naturally, the rest of patients have been tempted to consult with their physicians by MyChart or email instead of by placing a telephone call and hoping for an answer despite the tight schedules most doctors are forced to maintain owing to the parsimonious administrators of health insurance plans.

Of course, most healthcare patients like to use remote consultation with their physicians whenever they believe they can--laymen often overestimate their understanding of their medical conditions.  In the case of clarification of therapeutic instructions or other follow-up questions, Johns Hopkins has indicated that no charges are contemplated.  And, of course, physicians can always answer such questions by demanding an office visit; but it seems that the advance of communications technology has outpaced the standard clinical practice business model.

GPT Artificial Intelligence also threatens the basis of that business model.   AI potentially commodifies medical expertise, fooling patients into believing that they can master the intricacies of medical diagnosis and treatment through intelligent use of the Internet.

In any case, medical insurance plans must also cover the fees that healthcare practitioners can justifiably charge for advising their patients electronically. This addition to the availability of their services is as much a convenience for medical practitioners as for their patients.  Moreover, effective use of virtual office-visit services gives a competitive edge to those healthcare providers who offer them.  On the other hand, commercialization of MyChart threatens to advance the transactional nature of doctor-patient relationships when many other aspects of human life are already losing much of their communitarian intimacy.


01 July 2023

Students v. Harvard and UNC Ignores Preamble 

The Preamble of the U.S. Constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”  It guarantees that whatever appears later in that document will help ensure what has been defined to mean a more perfect union and the general welfare in the over 200 years since the Founding by public discourse and preceding decisions of the Supreme Court itself.  

All of that has been ignored by the Supreme Court’s decision on June 29, 2023.  The general welfare of the republic cannot be ensured without correcting the racial discrimination that has prevented the perfection of its existence as a Union as well as its domestic tranquility.  The objectives of the Constitution laid out in its Preamble are the responsibility of the Supreme Court to protect as much as any of its subsequent clauses.   America’s intellectually formative institutions, including public and private universities, have chosen affirmatively to use racial balancing of their student bodies as a means for fulfilling their mission to shape the indiscriminate nature of our society.  That choice is not only constitutionally lawful but has also proven to be effective.

The Roberts opinion in Students v. Harvard and UNC assumes the freedoms and privileges of the Union’s citizens are granted to them individually by the Constitution.  However, minority university applicants also are members of collectives that have a history within the national community that started even before its establishment as a British colony.  That membership has sometimes handicapped their ability to enjoy the personal benefits of the rules of our co-citizenship that have evolved over time.  The Supreme Court must, therefore, prevent the laws and practices of the country from depriving those minority community members of any of those benefits.  The Constitution does not grant rights and privileges to minority communities; but it does attempt to remove restraints on those rights and privileges when imposed by the nation’s majority.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?