Here's a new fun fact that I'm sure will get few mentions from the bloviators in the Right-wing media.
Pelosi and Reid both oppose the Assault Weapon Ban.
Personally, I agree with them. Who gives a crap about some guy with a cache of AK-47s? Hell, I'd like to have a few machine guns myself.
If you'll note, the National Rifle Association says nothing about Pelosi and Reid on their legislative website.
Their failure to support politicians who support the 2nd Amendment begs the question: Is the NRA really in favor of politicians that support the 2nd Amendment or is their ideology so strong that they cannot imagine a Democrat actually being in favor of gun rights?
Who knows. I do note that most of the bozos touted by the NRA come from the right-wing of the Republican Party, so the NRA isn't exactly a paragon of balance.
Why do you suppose that is?
Personally, I don't think either party has a lock on the personal freedom and protection of rights agenda.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Personal beliefs cannot trump quality of medical care--ever.
Finally, the President is bringing some Constitutionality back to health care.
The Bush administration pushed through a regulation that allowed health care workers to refuse health care that violated their beliefs. Now, Obama is proposing to rescind such a reactionary, unconstitutional, and morally suspect piece of right-wing pandering.
Why do I oppose this regulation?
Health care professions are similar to the legal profession in that we assume the duty to perform to the best of our skills and to subordinate our personal interests to those we serve--it's known as a fiduciary obligation. Someone entering a field where people's lives are on the line has a fiduciary duty to subordinate their personal feelings and beliefs to the standard of care required in their field.
As a lawyer, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I represented defendants in criminal cases that I found personally repugnant, but I took an oath to uphold the law even for those I thought should be locked up. The law is not some suggestion to be discarded in favor of our own predilections despite what medical school may teach.
Health care workers incapable of providing the highest standard of care due to personal beliefs have a moral obligation to leave the profession, since they obviously cannot give the best quality of care due to a personal issue.
Similarly, if I could no longer uphold the law because I disagreed with it, even for those most deserving of its punishment, then my fiduciary duty is to remove myself from its practice in order to protect the law from my personal failings.
No one argues that medical providers should sacrifice their beliefs, but they have a legal and moral duty to avoid placing themselves in situations where they will be forced to choose between their beliefs and the highest quality of care for their patients.
No one, even a doctor, has the authority to elevate their personal beliefs above that of their patients' well-being. That's the height of arrogance and self-righteousness.
Welcome back to some sanity.
The Bush administration pushed through a regulation that allowed health care workers to refuse health care that violated their beliefs. Now, Obama is proposing to rescind such a reactionary, unconstitutional, and morally suspect piece of right-wing pandering.
Why do I oppose this regulation?
Health care professions are similar to the legal profession in that we assume the duty to perform to the best of our skills and to subordinate our personal interests to those we serve--it's known as a fiduciary obligation. Someone entering a field where people's lives are on the line has a fiduciary duty to subordinate their personal feelings and beliefs to the standard of care required in their field.
As a lawyer, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I represented defendants in criminal cases that I found personally repugnant, but I took an oath to uphold the law even for those I thought should be locked up. The law is not some suggestion to be discarded in favor of our own predilections despite what medical school may teach.
Health care workers incapable of providing the highest standard of care due to personal beliefs have a moral obligation to leave the profession, since they obviously cannot give the best quality of care due to a personal issue.
Similarly, if I could no longer uphold the law because I disagreed with it, even for those most deserving of its punishment, then my fiduciary duty is to remove myself from its practice in order to protect the law from my personal failings.
No one argues that medical providers should sacrifice their beliefs, but they have a legal and moral duty to avoid placing themselves in situations where they will be forced to choose between their beliefs and the highest quality of care for their patients.
No one, even a doctor, has the authority to elevate their personal beliefs above that of their patients' well-being. That's the height of arrogance and self-righteousness.
Welcome back to some sanity.
Eat less, exercise more: The only true diet that works.
This study confirms what most of the world has known for years.
Fad dieting and tricks to lose weight don't really work.
Losing weight depends on a simple formula: Eat less and Exercise More.
Weight loss boils down to burning more calories than one consumes.
Diets don't work. Lifestyle change does.
Cut calories by changing what you eat and how much you eat. Burn calories by increasing activity.
Simple huh?
There are no quick fixes to years of overeating and inactivity.
Fad dieting and tricks to lose weight don't really work.
Losing weight depends on a simple formula: Eat less and Exercise More.
Weight loss boils down to burning more calories than one consumes.
Diets don't work. Lifestyle change does.
Cut calories by changing what you eat and how much you eat. Burn calories by increasing activity.
Simple huh?
There are no quick fixes to years of overeating and inactivity.
Bankruptcy for automakers would make public executive compensation: The Real Reason for avoiding bankruptcy
For the past few months I've been wondering why the Big 3 automakers have assiduously avoided any thought of filing bankruptcy.
The stated reason is that it would undermine their market share since consumers wouldn't buy cars from companies in bankruptcy.
I find their reasoning a little off and have for awhile. Bankruptcy would allow the auto makers to renegotiate ALL their contracts with the unions while providing some protection for the already retired workers. This falls under 11 U.S. C. Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code.
After thinking about it, I've figured out the real reason the car companies don't want bankruptcy.
Executive Compensation.
Under the bankruptcy code, when a company enters Chapter 11, all executive compensation must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Insider compensation must be disclosed in the bankruptcy too so the public would find out the extravagant pay packages paid out.
With the economy in such shape and their companies in such a state, these executives know the court will deny them millions of dollars a year after balancing that with layoffs and bad business decisions.
Of course the public would rise up in anger over the millions of dollars paid for executives who made bad decision. That's ultimately the reason why the big 3 would lose market share. I'm sure the creditor's committees in these bankruptcies would also complain about the excessive salaries too.
This begs the question: What's more important? The bottom line for the executives or their fiduciary obligation to their companies and the economy as a whole?
The stated reason is that it would undermine their market share since consumers wouldn't buy cars from companies in bankruptcy.
I find their reasoning a little off and have for awhile. Bankruptcy would allow the auto makers to renegotiate ALL their contracts with the unions while providing some protection for the already retired workers. This falls under 11 U.S. C. Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code.
After thinking about it, I've figured out the real reason the car companies don't want bankruptcy.
Executive Compensation.
Under the bankruptcy code, when a company enters Chapter 11, all executive compensation must be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Insider compensation must be disclosed in the bankruptcy too so the public would find out the extravagant pay packages paid out.
With the economy in such shape and their companies in such a state, these executives know the court will deny them millions of dollars a year after balancing that with layoffs and bad business decisions.
Of course the public would rise up in anger over the millions of dollars paid for executives who made bad decision. That's ultimately the reason why the big 3 would lose market share. I'm sure the creditor's committees in these bankruptcies would also complain about the excessive salaries too.
This begs the question: What's more important? The bottom line for the executives or their fiduciary obligation to their companies and the economy as a whole?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)