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?
https://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/advocacy/topics/independent-payment-advisory-board.page
“Independent Payment Advisory Board
One of the most controversial provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the establishment of an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). While some applaud the new advisory board as a mechanism for controlling health care costs outside the influence of political processes and pressures, others have criticized the scope of its authority and the lack of flexibility in its mandate. Because of these serious concerns, the American Medical Association opposes the IPAB and supports its repeal.
The AMA continues to fight for the elimination of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will impose arbitrary across-the-board cuts to physicians and other providers.”
——————–
I’m going to take some time to read this site.
Karen, The AMA may oppose it, but do they oppose it for other reasons than you mention?
Yes, and advanced directives meeting is definitely a good idea.
It’s tough for families and doctors to have to make decisions for an incapacitated patient, when they don’t know what they want.
Karen,
We’ve had minimum wage for years with increases and everybody lived. What is so terrible about it now?
Feynman:
What are you talking about? You can still have all of those conversations with your doctor, and you should.
Republicans vehemently oppose the ACA, which is also opposed in whole or in part, by the vast majority of Americans. Republicans have not inserted themselves in any conversation between you and your doctor.
The IPAB does insert itself in just such a manner.
Currently, insurance companies ration care through co-pays (which encourage people to self ration care they don’t really need), and they also can deny alternative treatments that have not yet been proven, or that only help a small percentage of people. To my knowledge, they do not deny covered treatment based on age, because then by definition, all geriatric patients would just stop paying for insurance if they’re not going to be covered.
But IPAB does, theoretically, have the power to age discriminate.
It is disturbing that people who have real concerns about IPAB are labelled loons, when the American Medical Association opposes it, too.
Feynman, that discussion called an Advanced Directives meeting. That is precisely what gets discussed and more.
Karen said
End of life discussions can be either good or bad.
feynman asks. When are they bad?
Annie
My ‘death panel’ discussion (which has no panel involvement) is about, how much will it hurt, will i go blind, will I get drugs, will the pain be controlled, will the hospital insist on a feeding tube, will i be on oxygen., are there new drugs, what are their side effects, what are the side effects of all the other treatments, will my hair fall out, will I be incontinent, …
My death ‘panel’ is a conversation. The Republicans said no.
http://resources.lawinfo.com/estate-planning/maryland/what-is-the-difference-between-a-living-will.html
More info on the difference between the two.
Karen
Play fair. The IPAB is not in charge. It is advisory.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-living/consumer-health/in-depth/living-wills/art-20046303
Karen you are getting Advanced Directives and Living Wills confused.
Karen’s right about studies.
Advanced directives do not have to be drawn up in illness, but it’s often during that time that someone starts thinking about the “what if’s”.
Again, it puts the patient in charge of decisions, not IPAB.
Feynman:
I would break my fingers listing everything I don’t like about ACA.
Karen as I stated, Advanced Directives are not usually drawn up in healthy people, that is a Living Will.
It is the patient who draws up an advanced directive. Here is a link defining it as a type of living will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_health_care_directive
A healthcare power of attorney gives decisions to a trusted person in the event you are incapacitated. It is not the patient making the decisions, but she has had a chance to (hopefully) explain her wishes to her representative.
Again, totally different from IPAB.
Karen said:
We should not keep repeating an action and expect a different result.
Huh? This is the first big healthcare reform since Medicare.
Or do you mean what we get when we get Democrats in the WH. (draw smiley face here)
Feynman, the Advanced Directives are drawn up AFTER the family and the doctor meet and discuss it. It’s NOT the same as a Living Will. Medical CARE is discussed in the Advanced Directives meetings. A healthcare POA is usually appointed at this time if the patient wishes or is unable to make their own decisions. The healthcare POA is usually next of kin or close relative.
Karen, should I risk asking what else don’t you like? Maybe I should go to the bathroom first.
Feynman:
Advanced directives are a start, but they are usually written on a bright, sunny day in the pink of health. They are a basis. And then of course there should be discussions with the patient, family, and physician.
I support all of that.
But my personal experiences with bureaucracies in health care have been negative, and am concerned that IPAB would be more so.
Dredd:
You have had no problem whatsoever introducing other topics, going after conservatives in general.
But I gave you a very basic math problem and you just . . . can’t . . . answer it. I suspect you have absolutely no idea how to answer it.
You, yourself, brought up minimum wage as part of the linked 6 Studies Why Everything That Republicans Believe Are Wrong.
But when I call you to answer for it, you’re stuck and now want to get back to Sterling.
That’s fine, but please stop bring up an opinion you cannot support. Because people might follow you, and vote accordingly, and “something just WON’T work out” for the small business owners you hurt.