Sunday, September 26, 2021

Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee re Blue Cross class action settlement

To: Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee, c/o directors Danne Howard and Robin Stone, 

Re: $2.7 billion Blue Cross Blue Shield class action settlement

I believe the organizational purposes of the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee should give the Committee an interest in the above class action settlement and in the objection to the settlement that I have filed, which objection is set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/08/my-objection-in-bcbs-class-action.html.

I am directing this communication to ACJRC in care of directors Danne Howard and Robin Stone, because Ms. Howard is deputy director of the Alabama Hospital Association; Mr. Stone was Vice President of Governmental Affairs of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama; those two organizations have special knowledge relative to the subject matter of the class action lawsuit; and Ms. Howard and Mr. Stone should be specially qualified to evaluate my objection to the class action settlement.

My above objection describes my objection as follows: 

Reducing health care costs is an important national objective. The class action purports to recover past health costs that were allegedly excessive because of anti-competitive practices that Blue Cross Blue Shield had in the conduct of their  health insurance business, and to end those practices to prevent those excessive health care costs going forward.

I believe that the effect that Defendants' business practices had on health insurance premiums and health care costs during the years 2008 through 2020, and the effect of the Injunctive Relief in the future, are grossly speculative. 

With said effects being grossly speculative, Plaintiffs' attorneys are in a position to agree to any settlement, practically no matter how small, and thereby receive very large attorneys' fees. 

Defendants' officers and directors can go along with a small settlement that will not have a material adverse effect on Defendants' business, and the stakeholders in the Defendants will not be bothered to complain about the settlement being excessive (since the settlement is small). 

In the foregoing situation there is potential for Plaintiffs' attorneys abusing the judicial branch of government to get large attorneys' fees on grounds that are grossly speculative, so grossly speculative that there was no detriment from the business practices for 2008 through 2020, and, in the future, the Injunctive Relief will in fact be detrimental, and not beneficial, to class members and to other consumers of health insurance. 

To appreciate how grossly speculative the effect of the Defendants' business practices was, and of the Injunctive Relief in the future, requires extensive knowledge about health care markets and health insurance markets. These markets are extremely complex in their workings, and there are many different business practices by many different actors in the said markets that are interrelated and have interrelated effects. For example, if a business practice of an actor is precluded, it is speculative about what other practices will be adopted or modified, and what the net effect will be on health insurance premiums and health care costs  

With things being so grossly speculative, Plaintiffs' attorneys will not lose sleep over whether Defendants' business practices in 2008 to 2020 were, and Injunctive Relief will be, beneficial, neutral or detrimental to health insurance markets and consumers of health insurance. 

There are, however, governmental officials and entities who are charged by law to be concerned about how health insurance markets work for consumers and what changes will improve or not improve their operation for consumers. 

Even these knowledgeable and experienced governmental officials and entities may be beset by great uncertainty in judging the detriment, if any, of Defendant's business practices in 2008 through 2020, and the benefit, if any, that will come from the Injunctive Relief, in the complex and interrelated markets for health insurance and health care. 

To protect the judicial branch from being abused by Plaintiffs' attorneys, the Court should hear from one or more of these governmental officials and entities about what their opinion is concerning the detriment of Defendants' business practices in 2008 to 2020, and net benefit the Injunctive Relief will provide to class members and other consumers in the health insurance market. 

To that end, I have solicited governmental officials to review the settlement agreement and to give the court the benefit of their views, as aforesaid. 

I have been doing this in the form of a letter I have disseminated to them by various means in the form set out at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2021/05/bcbs-settlement-reducing-health-care.html  

The named addressees of said letter are my state and Federal officials consisting of Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, United States Senator Richard Shelby, United States Senator Tommy Tuberville, U.S. Rep. Gary Palmer, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall, Alabama state Senator Dan Roberts, and Alabama state Rep. Jim Carns. Said officials may forward my solicitation to appropriate other governmental officials and governmental departments and agencies having the needed expertise to review the settlement. 

I solicit the Alabama Civil Justice Reform Committee to support me in what I am doing relative to my objection.

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Gov. Ivey and vaccine mandates

In this morning's virtual town discussing the virus and vaccines, Gov. Ivey said she was opposed to governmental vaccine mandates.

The reason Gov. Ivey gave for opposing government mandates is that they contravened the right and freedom of each person to make their own health care choices about the vaccine, and the government should not use a mandate to make, or try to make, a person receive a vaccine.

In giving that as her reason for opposing vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey expressed no consideration of the effect on other Alabamians of people making personal choices not to get vaccinated.

In the town hall, there was discussion of the large amount of misinformation about the vaccine on the Internet, the problem that people may be making personal choices based on the misinformation, and the great difficulties in countering the misinformation.

Personal choice not to get vaccinated affects other Alabamians
The past few months have shown that there are very significant adverse consequences to other Alabamians from people's personal decisions not to be vaccinated. These include large numbers of infections, hospitalizations and deaths of other Alabamians that would not have occurred if more Alabamians were vaccinated, and overburdening of hospitals and the health care system and impairing their ability to provide services to persons with severe COVID and to persons having other other serous health problems in need of treatment.

While this morning Gov. Ivey expressed no consideration of the adverse consequences to other Alabamians of people making personal choices not get vaccinated, it is possible she has given a lot of thought to the extent to which a governmental vaccine mandate would keep such adverse consequences from happening. 

Given the potential very adverse consequences that could result from not having a mandate, Gov. Ivey should have given a lot of thought to how much a mandate would save lives and protect the health of Alabamians. She should have done extensive consultation with Dr. Harris and other expert advisors to get information and opinions about how much a mandate would help save lives and protect the health of Alabamians.

A special factor Gov. Ivey should have taken into account is the extent to which  misinformation is being being purveyed about vaccines, the risk that people are making personal decisions not to get vaccinated based on misinformation, and these personal decisions are adversely affecting other Alabamians as referred to above.

Gov. Ivey should report to Alabamians about the consideration she and her administration gave to how much a mandate would help, or not, to save lives of Alabamians and protect their health, and should fairly report the conclusions they reached, and expressly state that it was their determination that the collective benefit to be received by all Alabamians from a vaccine was an insufficient basis for interfering with  the personal right and freedom of each person to decide for themselves about whether to get vaccinated. 

Protecting Alabamians from their own choices
The adverse effect on other Alabamians that is discussed above if people choose not to be vaccinated is or should be the primary consideration by Gov. Ivey in making a decision to impose a mandate or not.

While that is primary, there is a role for government to protect people from making bad personal choices for themselves. Requirements of people to wear seat belts and of motor cyclists to wear helmets are examples of not allowing people personal choices. Prohibiting people from using dangerous drugs such as heroin is another example.

In most cases, not being vaccinated is a bad personal choice, and it would not be run amuck totalitarianism for there to be a governmental vaccine mandate to protect people from making a bad personal choice not to get vaccinated.

This would seem to be acutely the case where there is massive misinformation being purveyed about vaccines, and people are making personal decisions not to get vaccinated based on misinformation.


10/10/21
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 18, 2021

Memo to Moon and Person

To Josh Moon and David Person:

I listened to your below podcast.

I am not trying to contribute anything on redistricting front. I wish success to all those who are. As you say in podcast, the outcome will be bad no matter what.

I wish mainly to discuss what you say about Alabama Dems seeming not being able to get inspired and motivated candidates running and campaigning hard for office against Repubs, and what you say about the poor messaging and communicating by Dems in Alabama.

My platform
I agree with what you say about Alabama Dems seeming not being able to get inspired and motivated candidates running and campaigning hard for office against Repubs, and what you say about the poor messaging and communicating by Dems in Alabama.

I think what I wish to discuss connected to what you say is to set it in the context of what I will call my platform.

I was a Republican. I am now an Independent. I think our politics and political discourse are controlled and determined by the "extremes" on the two sides, and the leaders on the two sides who have their power and position by playing to their respective "extremes." The "extremes" are oppositional on just about everything.

I think a  majority (maybe 80%), who are in the middle, do not partake of the extreme opposition that the "extremes" engage in, and that majority could live with many compromise resolutions of issues that the "extremes" prevent from happening. See, for example, my discussion of the immigration issue at  https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2018/01/joint-town-hall-script.html .

I believe that the "extremes" create the situation of the two sides not talking to each other, and are the cause of the horrible polarization of the country and the impairment of the country's governance that flows from that. See my discussion at https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2018/02/can-two-sides-talk.html

Getting inspired Dem candidates running; better messaging
Here are my suggestions:

There are Alabamians who feel very strongly about particular issues. Urge them to declare as candidates and start their campaigns with a focus on the issue they feel strongly about. This is to translate their strong feelings into motivation to undertake needed efforts, and attract others to make needed efforts, in order to communicate to other Alabamians on the issue and potentially persuade them on the issue in question.

Two issues about which there are Alabamians with strong feelings are abortion and guns.

[to be continued] 

Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, September 15, 2021

Obstructing prevention of preventable deaths

In my opinion, Gov. Ivey and other ALGOP officials, leaders and influencers are guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths in Alabama, and they should be publicly called out. This is particularly the case regarding vaccination mandates.

Alabama TV stations should participate in this calling out.

Also business chambers of commerce should participate in the calling out, or else themselves be guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths in Alabama.

The calling out can be started in the form of asking, and getting answers to, the following three questions:

1. If you were Gov. Ivey, would you have imposed vaccine mandates? 
2. Do you think there have been COVID deaths that vaccine mandates would have prevented? 
3. Will history get written castigating those who obstructed preventing preventable deaths?

This has been initiated in the following ways:

9/17/21 The state attorneys general letter to Biden
Twenty three GOP state attorneys general have sent a letter to Biden threatening to sue over the vaccine mandate. The text of the letter can be found at https://www.scribd.com/document/525720934/AGs-Letter-to-Pres-Biden-on-Vaccine-Mandate-FINAL-02715056xD2C78/

In charging that, in opposing vaccine mandates, Gov. Ivey and other ALGOP officials, leaders and influencers are guilty of obstructing the prevention of preventable COVID deaths and preventable hospitalizations in Alabama, the contentions of the attorneys general letter need to be considered.

Vaccine mandates by the government are an exercise of the government's power (and obligation) to protect public health and safety, which the United States Supreme Court passed on in the 1905 Jacobson case. The decision in the Jacobson case is fairly indicated in the Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts as follows 

Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the decision for a 7–2 majority that the Massachusetts law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]The Court held that "in every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others."[2]

Furthermore, the Court held that mandatory vaccinations are neither arbitrary nor oppressive so long as they do not "go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public".[2] In Massachusetts, with smallpox being "prevalent and increasing in Cambridge", the regulation in question was "necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety".[2] The Court noted that Jacobson had offered proof that there were many in the medical community who believed that the smallpox vaccine would not stop the spread of the disease and, in fact, may cause other diseases of the body.[2] However, the opinions offered by Jacobson were "more formidable by their number than by their inherent value" and "[w]hat everybody knows, ... [the] opposite theory accords with the common belief and is maintained by high medical authority."[2] Therefore, it was left to the legislature, not the courts, to determine which of the "two modes was likely to be the most effective for the protection of the public against disease".[2] No one could "confidently assert that the means prescribed by the State to that end has no real or substantial relation to the protection of the public health and the public safety".[2]

Finally, the Court acknowledged that, in "extreme cases", for certain individuals "in a particular condition of ... health", the requirement of vaccination would be "cruel and inhuman[e]", in which case, courts would be empowered to interfere in order to "prevent wrong and oppression".[2] However, the statute in question was not "intended to be applied to such a case" and Jacobson "did not offer to prove that, by reason of his then condition, he was, in fact, not a fit subject of vaccination".[2]l


The attorneys general letter says
“Your plan is disastrous and counterproductive. From a policy perspective, this edict is unlikely to win hearts and minds – it will simply drive further skepticism. And at least some Americans will simply leave the job market instead of complying. This will further strain an already-two-tight labor market, burdening companies and (therefore) threatening the jobs of even those who have received a vaccine. Worse still, many of those who decide to leave their jobs rather than follow your directive will be essential health care workers. This is no idle speculation. A New York hospital recently announced its plans to stop delivering babies after several staff members resigned in the face of New York mandate. And recent polling suggests those frontline health care workers are not outliers. Thus, Mr. President, your vaccination mandate represents not only a threat to individual liberty, but a public health disaster that will displace vulnerable workers and exacerbate a nationwide hospital staffing crisis, with severe consequences for all Americans.”

The core issue here is whether Alabama should or should not have governmentally imposed vaccine mandates. If Gov. Ivey says Alabama should not have governmentally imposed vaccine mandates, she should give her justification for that, including, for example, a statement of her judgment or opinion that governmentally imposed vaccine mandates would not result in fewer deaths and fewer hospitalizations than would happen if there are not governmentally imposed vaccine mandates. 

If Gov. Ivey's judgment is that governmentally imposed vaccine mandates would reduce deaths and hospitalizations, then, if it is her decision nonetheless not to impose governmental vaccine mandates, she needs state the reasons why she has chosen for there to be deaths and hospitalizations that she could have prevented.

The foregoing is needed for voters to evaluate Gov. Ivey's performance as Governor in fulfilling her obligation to protect the health and safety of Alabamians.

If Gov. Ivey says she would impose governmental vaccine mandates, but she is not imposing them because the Alabama legislature has passed a law preventing her from imposing the mandates, she should expressly say that, in which case the legislators who voted tor the law preventing Gov. Ivey from imposing mandates would need to defend their vote to the voters. Their defense may be that their judgment is that governmental mandates would not reduce deaths and hospitalizations in Alabama. If that is not their judgement, then they need to give reasons why they acted to prevent Gov. Ivey from preventing deaths and hospitalizations.

For more, see Gov. Ivey and vaccine mandates


Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, September 9, 2021

Jerry Carl & Dr. Fauci's ethics

Jerry Carl started attacking Dr. Fauci's ethics in June. 

Today, Yellowhammer tweeted below, with a Jeff Poor article about an interview he had with Jeerry on his show.

Jeff Poor's article says  Carl was asked if he still believed Fauci’s motivations were driven by financial interests and 

 "No doubt in my mind,” Carl replied. “And we’ve tried every way in the world to get a peek at that. And that’s sealed up like so many things in Washington. There’s no doubt in my mind, and that’s the only thing that’s made sense to me — to say one thing one day, and say something totally opposite the next week. It’s got to be financially related. I still believe that, and I’ll go to my grave believing that.”

The FDA has extensive regulation of conflicts of interest and prohibited financial interests of FDA employees . https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/ethics/prohibited-financial-interests-fda-employees

Given how doubt cast on the FDA has likely contributed to Alabamians not getting vaccinated and, as a result, getting hospitalized and dying, and such doubt will continue to contribute to the same, it is needed to be determined whether Jerry Carl is being irresponsible and reckless related to the health and welfare of his constituents and other Alabamians.

Among other things, demand needs to be made of Jerry Carl to give details of exactly what he tried to do to get information from the FDA about Dr. Fauci's financial interests, and such information needs to be verified with the FDA. 

The foregoing should be done by those in the Alabama media who hold themselves out as investigative reporters. I will try to urge that to happen.

 

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, September 7, 2021

Alabamians battling QAnon

Jeremy Gray, Managing Producer of Breaking News for Alabama Media Group, tweeted an article  "QAnon and anti-vaxxers brainwashed kids stuck at home — now teachers have to deprogram them" 

Most everyone agrees that Fake News, misinformation, disinformation, etc., is a burgeoning big problem (the "Big Problem") for the United States and its politics and governance.

A key element in this discussion is how big is the Big Problem, and how important is it to lessen the Big Problem

Much of the Big Problem is attributed to Big Tech and its social media creations.

Probably only Congress and the Federal government can apply force directly against Big Tech to try to effectuate changes that will lessen the Big Problem. Individual states may try to apply force directly against Big Tech (and Alabama is one such state), but there is can be only small hope for any effectiveness.

Many American citizens are greatly troubled by the Big Problem. Most of these citizens, however, are likely resigned that there is nothing they can do about it, and they are not trying to do anything.

In What AL can do about Big Tech, I said this about what citizens can do.

I think the generic candle that citizens can light is in your own actions, conduct and words, and wherever those interface with other citizens, you endeavor to apply your own brain and your own reason to try to determine what is truth and facts. This includes ample engagement with other citizens who are endeavoring to do the same, with a view to reaching agreement about what is truth and facts.

Besides citizens there are other actors in Alabama who are relevant to the Big Problem and are more significant than individual citizens, because these other actors have a bigger audience which they can affect relative to the Big Problem. These include Alabama's elected officials and other politicians, Alabama TV stations and reporters, radio talk shows, print and digital political news media and commentators, and Republican and Democrat party organizations.

These other actors have a mixed commitment to truth and facts and some of them have a political agenda that is better served by not purveying truth and facts. 

Alabama citizens and other actors in favor of truth and facts being purveyed and acted on by Alabamians are very puny in trying to counter the force and power of Big Tech and it social media creations that provide for purveying and consuming of misinformation and disinformation.

In their puniness, those Alabama citizens and other Alabama actors who favor truth and facts need to exert themselves mightily.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Every AL TV station newsroom should ask itself, "How big is the Big Problem; how powerfully does our journalistic commitment to truth and facts motivate us to try to counter the pernicious effect in Alabama of Big Tech and its social media creations: and what can we do to try to contribute to countering such pernicious effect in Alabama?" A start would be an editorial statement that is regularly made on its news shows about the Big Problem and the importance of Alabamians endeavoring to counter the pernicious effect in Alabama of Big Tech and its social media creations. This editorial statement could be coupled with a solicitation of viewers to submit suggestions.

[to be continued] 

See also
Obstructing prevention of preventable deaths, September 15, 2021

 

Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 4, 2021

What did I do in war against virus?

9/5/21
I did not put myself in a packed football stadium yesterday.

9/6/21

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)