We previously discussed the racist comments of Clippers owner Donald Sterling. We discussed the possible sanctions under the NBA rules, which are confidential. This afternoon NBA Commissioner Adam Silver announced that Clippers owner Donald Sterling will be suspended for life and fined $2.5 million. That blows away any prior sanction of the NBA.
Silver announced “I am banning Mr. Sterling for life from any association with the Clippers association or the NBA. Mr. Sterling may not attend any NBA games or practices, he may not be present at any Clippers facility, and he may not participate in any business or decisions involving the team.” That is pretty much a demand that he sell the team though he could use his general manager for some of those functions.
The $2.5 million fine will be donated to anti-discrimination organizations, which is a particularly nice touch.
I have little sympathy for Sterling and found his comments deeply disturbing and unsettling. However, it will be interesting to see if Sterling, who is a lawyer, will fight the fine. He is being banned and fine for private comments that he did not intend to be released publicly. While this is not the government (raising first amendment issues), it is a free speech questions. We have been discussing how government employees like teachers and police officers have been punished for statements and activities in their private lives. I have opposed that trend. In this case, Sterling did not even intend for this comments to go to anyone other than his girlfriend.
The question is where the line is drawn on private comments. No one would suggest sanctions Larry Johnson for (after the Sterling comments) reportedly called for all-black teams and league or his prior comments calling players “rebellious slaves.” He was clearly upset with the news and venting on social media. I understand that. Indeed, his call for some black owners of NBA team is understandable given this controversy and reflects a long-standing objection to the paucity of black owners in the NBA. Yet, those were intended to be public comments and might be viewed as offensive by white players or owners or fans. If the NBA rules extend to private communications, I am curious as to how it distinguishes between comments both public and private. When it comes to free speech, we tend to favor bright line rules but this is a rule that is neither published nor clear. Sterling may be the easy case due to the vile nature of these comments but Silver does not address the standard that has been and will be applied to owners and players.
The counter to this argument is that, as a NBA owner, Sterling agreed to comply with the rules, including the undisclosed rules of conduct. His comments clearly created an embarrassment for the NBA and other teams. Yet, my guess is that these rules are vaguely worded and this sanction is far beyond prior punishments. He probably could challenge it under contractual and even anti-trust theories.
In the end, he is being banned for being a racist (which he vehemently denies). However, if he did not act in a racist manner to the team or fans, should his private views be the basis for a ban. What is owners are anti-gay or anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim in private? Can they all be banned if a third party reveals their views or a private conversation surfaces?
What do you think?
Annie and Karen
I can’t keep up.
Health directives are one thing and, IMO ,are inadequate when things start getting serious. A patient and family should have a consult with a doc. A seriously ill patient and the family have too many questions.
True, we are not on single payor yet like the National Institute of Health. But it is the basis for some of the concerns here.
We should not keep repeating an action and expect a different result.
My problem with the ACA is not the handful of benefits that I like. It is the 6 feet of things that I do not like.
The trolls can’t stick to the subject of “Silver bans Sterling” from the NBA for being a racist, even though he is a republican plutocrat.
This explains health care rationing. Self rationing is where someone might use an over-the-counter remedy first rather than pay a copay. Covert rationing is when insurance companies use copays to encourage self rationing. Or they can refuse treatment for alternative therapies where it either has not been proven yet to help, or it just helps a small percentage of people.
To my knowledge, insurance companies do not currently refuse covered treatment based on patient age. Otherwise, why would people pay for insurance when coverage would be denied to them anyway based on age?
But IPAB would, theoretically, be able to do just that. This is already a problem with HHS in UK.
http://patients.about.com/od/patientempowermentissues/a/rationing.htm
Karen S
I’ll read the link about the NIH. But I think you are tossing me a lot of straw men. We’re a loooong way from NIH.
There is concern that the UK health system could evaluate a wider societal benefit from prioritizing the young over the old with medicine and health care:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561657/Too-old-lifesaving-drugs-Anger-plan-deny-treatment-youve-fair-innings.html
Karen private insurance companies are HUGE bureaucracies, whose bottom
line is profit.
Key…….”Might” judge him. That is not the case with the ACA.
Key…….IPAB is advisory. When it becomes mandatory, we can start screaming.
Key….. My Death Panel is a conversation between the Dr. and patient and all patients should avail themselves of this consult. And the Dr. should be paid. Currently there is no code for such a consult.
Here’s where pensioners are written off as too old for care in UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2544978/Too-old-cancer-treatment-NHS-writing-patients-75.html
Yes, I am aware of payment boards. That was one of the most hated things about HMOs, from what I recall.
Do you not see a problem with IPAB?
An advanced directive is a living will, and the patient has a say over how much intervention he or she wants if incapacitated.
It is completely different than IPAB.
And I don’t know about all of the topics that fell under “death panels” because the term was bandied about a lot, but IPAB was the one that I researched and agreed there was a problem, as does the AMA.
Trust me. Anytime an insurer or anyone else inserts a bureaucracy between a patient and her doctor, there is going to be an uproar. And there should be, because bureaucracies often make absurd decisions.
Karen, are you aware that private insurance companies had those so called “death panel boards” for years? Why do you think this idea started with the ACA?
Sterling is not a small business owner. Deflection.
Dredd:
If you won’t choose any of the options available to small business owners, then please stop repeating other people’s opinions. Because when it comes down to it, you seem to have absolutely no idea who small business owners will make this work. You can’t just waive your arm and say “something will just work out.”
This is math, and a good word problem for students, if you ask me.
Feynman:
End of life discussions can be either good or bad. Most physicians do already discuss whether it’s a good idea to “put Grandma through chemo.” When it is a physician who knows the family and the patient, that can be a good thing.
When it is an unreachable board who has never met the patient, and follows arbitrary guidelines, that can be bad.
We have a friend who is in his 70’s, shows draft horses, keeps some cattle, farms, has a lake at his house where he gives water-skiing lessons, and is more fit than most 40 year olds. But IPAB might judge him as “too old for treatment” just because of his age.
Sterling paid his workers millions above minimum wage.
Still the team got better and prospered.
Sterling is never-the-less a racist in a sub-culture that is trying to shake symbolic and other forms of racism.
In fact the NBA sub-culture is a leading example of struggling against racism, and they mean business.
Good business.
Feynman, that is what the original death panel furor was over IIRC. Those end of life discussions happened LONG before the advent of the ACA. They were and still are called Advanced Directives. There are precious few nursing home and no hospice patients that don’t have one on record in their charts.
I say often the duopoly has plenty of lies, bogeymen, etc. That’s all they got. Every election is “Yeah, we suck but we don’t suck as bad as those other guys.” We deserve much better.
Dredd:
It’s a simple math problem. I have given you options A-E above. There are no others. I have repeated asked you, in other posts, to explain to me which option you think is best for small business owners, but you have always refused to do so. I respect your opinion, but you seem to be just repeating the opinions of others without fully understanding the implications.
I actually am a small business owner. We have options A-E. That’s it. There is no magic money tree that will sprout in our yard overnight to pay for this. No taxpayer bailout. It’s just us, and options A-E.
So which option do you feel is best for small business owners?
That’s wonderful that major fast food chains can absorb over $5,000 per minimum wage employee but as I have stated, small business owners often do not have that kind of profit margin.
correction, Sterling is a plutocrat, Silver is not.