In Michigan, families with autistic children are considering suing health insurance companies to force them to provide care for their children. Insurance companies give many reasons why they do not cover these deserving children, but it is really about costs. In this market economy, if a company can offer less expensive premiums by excluding coverage of individuals with rare disorders, the company will gain an advantage in the market. Even though it will cost everyone a few more dollars, insurance companies should be forced to cover them.
It is reported that families lose their homes, retirement funds, declare bankruptcy and even have to give up jobs to take care of their children. All of those homes that are lost lowers the value of other homes. The lose of the retirement funds means there is less money for investment, savings and people have to work longer into their lives, keeping jobs from the young. Each dollar that is lost in bankruptcy by companies must be made up by raising the cost of everything. This raises the cost of living for all of us. It could be more than the few dollars more in premiums that insurance companies would need to charge to cover their cost for the additional coverage.
But it is more than money that we lose. It is a bit of our own humanity and community. We didn’t gather in communities at the beginning so that we could continue on just as we still lived as individuals in the wild. Communities were formed so that everyone could share in many of the responsibilities that individuals have in common. As the community expects each individual to live up to their own responsibility so each individual expects the community to do its part. To intentionally leaving out even one individual from the full benefits of the community is a violation of that pact.
Insurance is part of the market’s answer to help the community work. It is a way of sharing the responsibility for many of the dangers and risks that all of us will come across. For the community to continue to allow insurance companies to exclude families with children that have autism is to keep them from receiving the full benefit of the community. This violation of the pact between the individual and the community needs to be corrected.
This should not be fought out in the courts. It will be time consuming and cost even more money that could be used for the benefit of the families that are in need. It will take many years to work through a solution. In the mean time, the community will prevent many more children from receiving the care and treatment they need.
The state legislature needs to mandate that insurance companies provide the coverage that these children need – now.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
Freedom of speech
Three young men are being sent to prison and a long time White House reporter is being forced to resign. In both cases, freedom of speech is an issue (as far as the Responsible Community is concerned – see author’s note at the end) but only one was wrong.
What is the difference?
Three men were sentenced to various combinations of jail, drug rehab program and community service by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Shalina D. Kumar for burning a cross near the home of a African American family. The incident happen last August in Independence Township. All three pleaded guilty or no contest to the various crimes they were accused of committing. Judge Kumar said in court during the sentencing, “I think you should be ashamed and embarrassed for yourselves.” The judge in this case made a good decision and her sentencing statement expressed what should be the feelings and concerns of the entire community.
On a national stage, Helen Thomas, the long time White House reporter, resigned under pressure from her position with the Hearst organization after nearly 50 years because she said that the, “Jews should get out of Palestine.” She said it at a Jewish heritage month celebration after being asked her opinion by a rabbi. It does seem to be a reckless place to make such a statement. But, she must have felt safe to make the statement or she wasn’t thinking at all. Since she did resign, which the word “resign” is often a code word for being asked to leave, she saved a lot of trouble for everyone involved. But, she did have the right to make the statement and the community should be supporting her right to make any statement when it is not part of her reporting responsibilities.
The three men were wrong. It went well beyond a simple expression of an opinion. Everyone has the right to say what is on their mind, even if, as in this case, it is a discussing expression of racism. But, they crossed the line of merely expressing an opinion when they took action and burnt the cross near the family’s home. Action they claimed was not meant to express a racial opinion. But, there are few things that are more clearly racial than a burning cross in this culture with its history of bigotry. The action changed the expression of an opinion to an intimidating act. No one should face any intimidating act without a harsh, justified response from the community.
As for Helen Thomas, her statements were insensitive, expressed grave misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East and clearly stated a perverse view of reality. If she had continued on as a White House reporter, every reader should be keenly aware of her position on the trouble in that troubled land. But, her opinion was merely an expression with no action suggested. In this country, based on the freedoms we enjoy, the community should support her right to express herself.
On a side note, the reaction to the comments Thomas made outside of her professional duties may place a damper on others expressing their opinions in similar situations. This means the community will know less about the background opinions of others that are reporting the news. An open environment is much better than the alternative.
As a community, we must support freedom of speech everywhere. But, we must insure that those that are the target of speech aren’t intimidated nor come to any harm.
[Author’s note: It is obvious that the opinions expressed on the Responsible Community blog are not of a legal nature. They are more of a common sense, practical approach to community that works at sharing the responsibility between the individual and the community.]
-----
What is the difference?
Three men were sentenced to various combinations of jail, drug rehab program and community service by Oakland County Circuit Court Judge Shalina D. Kumar for burning a cross near the home of a African American family. The incident happen last August in Independence Township. All three pleaded guilty or no contest to the various crimes they were accused of committing. Judge Kumar said in court during the sentencing, “I think you should be ashamed and embarrassed for yourselves.” The judge in this case made a good decision and her sentencing statement expressed what should be the feelings and concerns of the entire community.
On a national stage, Helen Thomas, the long time White House reporter, resigned under pressure from her position with the Hearst organization after nearly 50 years because she said that the, “Jews should get out of Palestine.” She said it at a Jewish heritage month celebration after being asked her opinion by a rabbi. It does seem to be a reckless place to make such a statement. But, she must have felt safe to make the statement or she wasn’t thinking at all. Since she did resign, which the word “resign” is often a code word for being asked to leave, she saved a lot of trouble for everyone involved. But, she did have the right to make the statement and the community should be supporting her right to make any statement when it is not part of her reporting responsibilities.
The three men were wrong. It went well beyond a simple expression of an opinion. Everyone has the right to say what is on their mind, even if, as in this case, it is a discussing expression of racism. But, they crossed the line of merely expressing an opinion when they took action and burnt the cross near the family’s home. Action they claimed was not meant to express a racial opinion. But, there are few things that are more clearly racial than a burning cross in this culture with its history of bigotry. The action changed the expression of an opinion to an intimidating act. No one should face any intimidating act without a harsh, justified response from the community.
As for Helen Thomas, her statements were insensitive, expressed grave misunderstanding of the situation in the Middle East and clearly stated a perverse view of reality. If she had continued on as a White House reporter, every reader should be keenly aware of her position on the trouble in that troubled land. But, her opinion was merely an expression with no action suggested. In this country, based on the freedoms we enjoy, the community should support her right to express herself.
On a side note, the reaction to the comments Thomas made outside of her professional duties may place a damper on others expressing their opinions in similar situations. This means the community will know less about the background opinions of others that are reporting the news. An open environment is much better than the alternative.
As a community, we must support freedom of speech everywhere. But, we must insure that those that are the target of speech aren’t intimidated nor come to any harm.
[Author’s note: It is obvious that the opinions expressed on the Responsible Community blog are not of a legal nature. They are more of a common sense, practical approach to community that works at sharing the responsibility between the individual and the community.]
-----
Friday, June 11, 2010
Buying American part two
In the fine print it states that if you include American made products as a high percent of your total investment you will be able to bid on a project. The project is part of the stimulus package created by congress. It is for, of all things, waste water management, heavy industry items that are at the core of American manufacturing.
Meet Mr. Pokorsky owner of Aquarius Technologies Inc. located in Port Washington, Wisconsin. His company makes equipment for waste water treatment. His equipment is all manufactured in America with some suppliers located in other parts of North America. With $6 billion of the stimulus package earmarked for just what he makes, this was to be a boom for Pokorsky.
Except Canada heard about the Buy American prevision of the package. Some of Pokorsky's suppliers and many of his clients in the great country to the north didn’t like the possibility of being excluded from the contracts. As an example, the town of Halton Hills west of Toronto decided to do something about that. The town of 50,000 people is amending their procurement policies to make sure American made products don’t get used. As Mayor Rick Bonnette says, "We won't be taking any products from any country that is discriminating against us."
In response to the movement in Canada to amend procurement policies Pokorsky said, "If that sticks, well, there goes 25% of my business. To me, Ontario may as well be Indiana."
Many people are examining the Great Depression because of the current economic climate. It is argued that the depression was made even worse because of another way of supporting American made products. The U.S. government at the start of the down turn attempted to protect American jobs by placing a tariff on foreign goods. France, England and Germany responded with their own tariffs on our products. Trade dropped dramatically and made the economy all over the world worse.
As a selling point in the unofficial market place, being made in America can be seen as a benefit to the buyer, if the buyer is American. But, if you are Canadian, Mexican or another country making decisions based on the content of the material, maybe that wouldn’t be such a great benefit.
As a community, if we want to make policy decisions based on maintaining and growing American jobs we need to avoid building the castle of protectionism. The official policy theory of buying American to protect American jobs is a great sound bite in an election. But, the way official policy works out in practice is occasionally just the opposite.
Protectionism as a community policy is a great idea… that doesn’t work.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Buy American may not be the best way to help us
It is rare that a decision in the market place doesn’t come down to that. If we buy an American car, you may be supporting yourself, your family and your country. But, that makes other countries economically weaker. If you buy a foreign product, you are helping the world and your country (storage, shipping, dealerships are all in the states, sometimes the car is even built here) but may not be helping you or your family. That is a simplistic view, but it helps set up a solution.
The reality is each country tries to control every aspect of economics so that investment and business will come to their part of the world, to the detriment of other countries. The products and services that are produced are actually secondary to the jobs that it provides. Every country knows that jobs and income create stability in a community. Illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and other ills are born directly from a lack of economic prosperity. If people do not feel like their future will get better for them or their children, they will look for ways to express their dissatisfaction.
To get the investment for jobs, third world countries have many tools that will make their countries interesting, both formal and informal. Taxes can be reduced to start with, environmental laws can be weakened, and regulation of the production process and of human resources can be lessened. Countries that haven’t dropped all regulation often ignore their own laws to keep a job providing company in the country. This degrades the environment and the human condition. It can be argued that it actually makes things worse because when the false promise of prosperity is found out, people will rebel.
Some of these countries are rogue states that do not deserve our support. Those countries that don’t allow the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy in America should not receive a favorable position in the market place. But, other than boycotts, there is no individual country mechanism that controls that other than legislation and taxes. No law will totally guarantee that some money will not get into the wrong hands, but it can be limited.
If we as a culture and a nation believe in the universality of human rights (as the Declaration of Independence states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal”) why should the question be them or us? If we are to stop illegal immigration, civil wars, terrorism and so many other ills, we must find a way to support third world countries. It could be by just giving them money, a payoff for our own lack of direction and no united front by all successful nations.
But, the better way, to borrow from an old adage, is to teach them to fish. Instead of just giving aid, if we understand that economics and the market place do have a place in solving world problems, then maybe making a decision in the market place that supports everyone will help. Purchasing products and services from other countries spurs more investment in the host country.
When people earn money and instead of just taking it, they see a better future.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north238.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125306012124114135.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/01/opinion/la-ed-american-20100501
-----
Monday, June 7, 2010
Suspects must speak to protect their rights, Supreme Court says
In a case out of Michigan, Berghuis v. Thompkins, No. 08-1470, Van Chester Thompkins was arrested as a suspect of a murder in Southfield in 2000. After being advised of his rights to remain silent under the court’s rules of the Miranda Warning, the police asked him if he understood his rights. They also asked Thompkins to sign a statement that clearly stated that he understood his rights. Since Thompkins did not say he wished to remain silent nor did he sign the statement, the police continued with their questioning. After almost three hours of integration Thompkins was asked three questions that he answered. He said “Yes”, to one of the questions, which was, “Does he pray to God that he will forgive him for the killing”.
That statement was used in court against him. He was convicted of the murder and sentenced to life in prison. He later argued that he intended to remain silent, therefore, the police should have stopped the questioning. Thompkins argues, therefore, that the answer to the question if he wanted God to forgive him for the murder should not have been used in his trial. (This assumes, of course, that it was the most incriminating evidence against him and that all other evidence was inconclusive without this statement.)
The Miranda Warning does have many variants. The Supreme Court didn’t suggest a specific wording. But it did say, as of interest to this case, “prior to interrogation, [the suspect must] be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent”, and “the person must be clearly informed”. The defense didn’t contest that he wasn’t informed before the integration nor that he wasn’t clearly informed, only that he remained silent. Just because he didn’t say anything, didn’t mean the officers were to interpret it as meaning he wanted to remain silent. As a matter of fact, when he answered the questions, it was clear that he wanted to talk.
In this situation, suspects must clearly state their intentions. This is a sensible decision that should be supported by the community.
Of course, there are exceptions that hopefully will be worked out in practice. Police and others can’t assume that someone understands English enough to comprehend what is required of them. The suspects also can’t be under the influence of alcohol or drugs, recreational or prescription. Also, if the suspect is from another country or if his lawyer gives him bad advice about speaking to police, the suspect must be given the benefit of doubt about his understanding of the protections in the United States.
The United States has a very well regulated police force that rarely gets out of control. They also have well established legal rights that every individual is aware of if they have spent a reasonable amount of time in country. The police have a tough job to do and should be granted some room to do that job.
Given this situation, individuals must take responsibility for acting on these rights when confronted by authorities.
-----
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thank you, Clorox
The change will make the community a much safer place by, first, eliminating the risk of chlorine gas poisoning for over 13 million Americans that live downwind of the seven plants. (Remember Union Carbide’s Bhopal chemical gas release in 1984.) It will also eliminate the risk that is posed by transporting 90 ton rail cars across the country. Finally, it will take Clorox's plants off lists that are targeted by terrorist because of the danger they present.
This makes good business sense as well. By converting to more cost effective and safer chemicals Clorox will operate in a less restrictive regulatory environment. Regulation of chemicals like Chlorine were developed and implemented because of the risk it presents to people and the environment. These regulations were not needed before the chemicals were developed. With most corporations operating in secrecy and using newly developed chemicals that all the dangers they present may not be known, the community has every right to know about their use. This enables individuals to make decisions about where to live and what products to use. These regulations empower the responsible individual.
When this conversion is completed, it will be a safer world from the manufacturing of the products, and the decrease threat of terrorist attack. These are real community solutions to real community concerns.
Thank you, Clorox.
Bhopal gas leak - http://www.bhopal.com/
Greenpeace press release - http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/clorox-to-eliminate-chlorine-d
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
BP Oil Spill - Gulf Leak Meter
The oil gushing from a well head a mile under the surface of the Gulf of Mexico may take until August to stop. The latest plan that has been concocted by BP could make it worse. Is everyone watching this?
Since BP’s well head in the Gulf of Mexico went up in flames April 20, 2010, a mind boggling amount of petroleum has been released into the environment. Every day 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil are still leaking. (1) Much of it has come to the surface and floating to the Gulf coast of the United States. It is destroying tourism, fisheries, coastal micro environments and taking a huge toll on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that earn an income from these industries.
Our obsession with petroleum powered automobiles and power plants has placed us in this situation. Since we reached peak oil (2) many years ago, supply has not kept up with demand. This isn’t just be
cause of our usage alone, the entire world is becoming more industrialized and relying on the same resources we have for over a hundred years now.
With the tremendous growth in demand, comes greater risk taking in finding more of the fuel. Once it was relatively safe, cheap and easy to find new sources of oil, now we have to go places that apparently, we don’t know how to bridle if things get out of control. All the plans that were made to prevent and repair this oil leak haven’t worked. The problem with this one well could be small compared to the thousands (3,860 to be precise) we have in the Gulf if they get out of control. What if another one blows up?
It is bad enough that we are destroying our own coast lines. Think if the oil had gone into Mexico or Central America. Not only would this have been an environmental problem it would have been an international problem.
Now, reports are coming to the attention of the media about many of the wells in the Gulf not having the permits needed to actually do the drilling. The government has been very lax on oversight of the exploration. Also, regulators are relying on the expertise of oil company engineers instead of hiring their own experts or seeking third party examination of the company plans. (3) This is happening because both, reports illustrate that there is a much too close relationship between the regulators and the industry and the agencies in charge of the oversight are not funded well enough to be able to afford the staff they need to do the job properly.
What to do?
Tax the entire industry for these problems. This will force other companies to help pay for the problems of anyone of them. Will it raise the cost of gas at the pump? Yes. And maybe that is what we need to help us pay attention to all of this. Nothing focuses attention like paying for a problem.
Fund the agencies that are in charge of oversight appropriately so they can hire their own experts. This will allow the needed critical analyses of the plans to make sure they are going to work in a secure and safe manner.
Stop allowing the close relationship between the regulators and the industry they monitor. No gifts or entertainment with industry people and regulators. Also, make the agency people partially responsible for the problems that their lack of oversight causes.
Make stock holders of the companies that cause the problem pay some of the damages. If you hold stock in the company at the time of the problem, you pay a fine on each share. This will help keep money from being invested in companies that take undue risks and bribe regulators.
Instead of executives of the companies that cause these problems just paying for clean up and a fine from the funds of the companies they run, give them a personal fine and jail time for their poor behavior.
Finally, as a country (and the world for that matter) move away from resources that aren’t renewable. When we depend on a limited resource like oil, it will peak. When it does, risks will be taken that shouldn’t be taken.
Are these tough things to do? Yes. But ask the people on the gulf coast that depend on the fisheries or tourism what they think. If your income was cut off because of this problem, how would you feel? As a community we must work at protecting everyone and preventing this from happening again.
1 How many gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil? - http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm
2 Peak Oil - http://peakoil.com/what-is-peak-oil/
3 BP was doing what was expected - http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-was-doing-what-was-expected.html
Date - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-offshore-oil-rig-explosion
-----
Since BP’s well head in the Gulf of Mexico went up in flames April 20, 2010, a mind boggling amount of petroleum has been released into the environment. Every day 12,000 to 19,000 barrels of oil are still leaking. (1) Much of it has come to the surface and floating to the Gulf coast of the United States. It is destroying tourism, fisheries, coastal micro environments and taking a huge toll on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people that earn an income from these industries.
Our obsession with petroleum powered automobiles and power plants has placed us in this situation. Since we reached peak oil (2) many years ago, supply has not kept up with demand. This isn’t just be
cause of our usage alone, the entire world is becoming more industrialized and relying on the same resources we have for over a hundred years now.
With the tremendous growth in demand, comes greater risk taking in finding more of the fuel. Once it was relatively safe, cheap and easy to find new sources of oil, now we have to go places that apparently, we don’t know how to bridle if things get out of control. All the plans that were made to prevent and repair this oil leak haven’t worked. The problem with this one well could be small compared to the thousands (3,860 to be precise) we have in the Gulf if they get out of control. What if another one blows up?
It is bad enough that we are destroying our own coast lines. Think if the oil had gone into Mexico or Central America. Not only would this have been an environmental problem it would have been an international problem.
Now, reports are coming to the attention of the media about many of the wells in the Gulf not having the permits needed to actually do the drilling. The government has been very lax on oversight of the exploration. Also, regulators are relying on the expertise of oil company engineers instead of hiring their own experts or seeking third party examination of the company plans. (3) This is happening because both, reports illustrate that there is a much too close relationship between the regulators and the industry and the agencies in charge of the oversight are not funded well enough to be able to afford the staff they need to do the job properly.
What to do?
Tax the entire industry for these problems. This will force other companies to help pay for the problems of anyone of them. Will it raise the cost of gas at the pump? Yes. And maybe that is what we need to help us pay attention to all of this. Nothing focuses attention like paying for a problem.
Fund the agencies that are in charge of oversight appropriately so they can hire their own experts. This will allow the needed critical analyses of the plans to make sure they are going to work in a secure and safe manner.
Stop allowing the close relationship between the regulators and the industry they monitor. No gifts or entertainment with industry people and regulators. Also, make the agency people partially responsible for the problems that their lack of oversight causes.
Make stock holders of the companies that cause the problem pay some of the damages. If you hold stock in the company at the time of the problem, you pay a fine on each share. This will help keep money from being invested in companies that take undue risks and bribe regulators.
Instead of executives of the companies that cause these problems just paying for clean up and a fine from the funds of the companies they run, give them a personal fine and jail time for their poor behavior.
Finally, as a country (and the world for that matter) move away from resources that aren’t renewable. When we depend on a limited resource like oil, it will peak. When it does, risks will be taken that shouldn’t be taken.
Are these tough things to do? Yes. But ask the people on the gulf coast that depend on the fisheries or tourism what they think. If your income was cut off because of this problem, how would you feel? As a community we must work at protecting everyone and preventing this from happening again.
1 How many gallons of gasoline from a barrel of oil? - http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99288.htm
2 Peak Oil - http://peakoil.com/what-is-peak-oil/
3 BP was doing what was expected - http://responsiblecommunity.blogspot.com/2010/05/bp-was-doing-what-was-expected.html
Date - http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-offshore-oil-rig-explosion
-----
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)