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?
Sorry, Karen. The Brill Time article (A Bitter Pill) is paywalled.
KarenS, Oh how did those successful family members survive what some people here call “demeaning jobs?”
Karen, I understand you have concerns. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that many/most Americans have concerns. It’s not perfect. Things will have to be adjusted.. But the old model of healthcare in this country was not sustainable.
IPAB is advisory.
Insurance companies weren’t advisory. They called the shots – unless you wanted to pay the bill yourself. I think a clerk in a call center talking to your doctor is even scarier. They’re strangers. The IPAB will be under lots of scrutiny.
Hospitals expect to do well with ACA. All those new patients with insurance. Most new patients will chose a doc who is a staff doc. Any procedures done by house staff will likely be done at his hospital or associated clinic. Hospitals make tons on those procedures.
Hospitals are buying out private group practices. They are then salaried and no longer have overhead or malpractice insurance. They lose their independence, but maybe there are less headaches for about the same take-home.
IDid you read the Time magazine article by Steven Brill? It got huge circulation numbers. I’ll try to find a link.
Sorry I haven’t adequately explained my position regarding end of life discussions. Our opinions may diverge because we are patients in different types of medical practices.
I’ve enjoyed our exchange. It was not my intent to approach this topic with prejudice. And I have great respect for the messenger.
One of my family is a self-made millionaire whose first jobs include cutting grass, washing cars, and waiting tables. And I have another family member who didn’t know what he wanted to do after high school. So he got an entry level, high labor job… and then went back to college and earned a PhD. These jobs are a starting point, and opportunity to get started, and sometimes a kick to go back to school.
My problem with academics is that they rarely own businesses, so study theoretical rather than practical economics.
Karen, Thanks, but I know we’re cool. Folks just stirring up shit. C’est la vie.
Hi Feynman:
There are many problems with the health care industry, and insurance, that do need to be addressed.
Currently, insurance can deny coverage for off-label drugs or new treatments that have yet to prove a good track record. If you’re terminally ill, you have to apply directly to the drug companies to get a compassionate use waiver of cost.
But Obamacare has actually further RESTRICTED medications and procedures. To help fight spiraling costs caused by all the “freebies” and increased coverage, and more sick patients, Exchange policies have a VERY TIGHT drug formulary. Many mainstream medications are not covered, such as MS meds that cost thousands of dollars. And if your meds are not covered, anything you pay out of pocket does NOT count towards your maximum out of pocket cap. (You can check out any Exchange policy online and verify this.) And the IPAB’s mission is to cut costs by decided what it will cover. That is an incentive to FURTHER reduce treatments covered. So it does not improve the situation; it exacerbates it.
Feynman:
Local minimum wage tends to reflect local cost of living. I have family who live in SF. It’s is REALLY expensive!
And check out that study – younger workers do indeed make up the majority of minimum wage.
I have great sympathy for those hardest hit by the economy, who are working lower wage jobs because that’s all they can find. But I think the answer is to improve the jobs market, not to create too huge an increase in minimum wage that might further threaten jobs.
Hi Feynman:
I was talking about the different political approaches between Democrats and Republicans, definitely not making generalizations about either group’s worth. We have all creeds in my family. Sometimes I disagree with someone’s politics, but love and respect the person. So I would never, ever, disparage all non-fiscal-conservatives as “bad people” just because I liked my method better. And if I ever slip then I need a gentle reminder, because I don’t want to go down that path.
And here is a study following the percentage of people who get raises from minimum wage:
http://www.epionline.org/study/r16/
Nick – no worries. I know it was good-natured teasing. 🙂
I looked in the spam filter. There are more than eleven thousand spams there and they are coming in like hailstones. No hope of finding lost comments.
Chuck – thanks for the effort.
Feynman:
All of our doctors are in private practice, but have privileges at the local hospital.
And, if the hospitals take a pay cut by accepting an Exchange policy, I wonder if it does trickle down to the staff, too. I actually do not know how that aspect works.
Nick:
“And Karen you are a stream of consciousness woman. What’s next for this thread, fly fishing?”
I know, right? I need a staple gun to keep me on topic today. Start any interesting idea and I’ll follow it, dragging everyone with me! Haha.
whocares:
Maybe you are upset because most people who are born with a silver spoon are the ones who are usually attracted to Marxism/socialism. It has had limited appeal to those of us who had to work for a living and that is historically accurate.
Too bad the average working man isnt down with the cause, it just goes to show you the good sense of those who toil in the trenches.
Feynman:
It’s true that the majority who oppose Obamacare in part or in whole include those who don’t want government healthcare, as well as those who feel it didn’t go far enough and want single payor.
Obamacare does not ALLOW end of life discussions that were not allowed before. You could still have any conversation you wanted with your doctor. It ADDS a bureaucratic panel answerable to no one who decides how to cut costs thought its payment decisions – IPAB.
And I’ve been careful to state that the concerns people have are in regards to how it is set up – totally unaccountable and vague. It’s theoretical where it can go wrong. And if a bureaucracy can go wrong, it will. I ignored all the rhetoric about death panels and just looked up what the issues were. And they were concerning.
But since prejudice is okay against Republicans, Libertarians, or people (like me) who just identify as fiscal conservatives, our concerns are brushed off. We could repeat verbatim the AMA’s objections, but there are many who would only listen when it came from the AMA. And that is a problem with prejudice. If you don’t like the messenger you could ignore a perfectly legitimate issue.
Feynman:
A discussion with your doctor about your concerns does not need a topic-specific billing code. It’s just an office visit. Or during a stay in a hospital, when your doctor comes to see you, you have that discussion. Hospitals usually have staff who help with these types of decisions. (At least we got that help when my grandpa was in his final illness.)
In fact, during your next physical, you could tell your doctor you are setting up a medical POA, or a medical directive, and ask for some guidance.
Just like you don’t need a billing code if you talk to your doctor about quitting smoking or getting more sleep. It’s just included in your office visit. They don’t charge by the minute or by the hour. Sometimes you’re done in 5 minutes (“Yep. That’s poison ivy. Here’s you’re Rx.) And sometimes you’re out in 2 hours. (“That looks concerning. Let’s biopsy. And maybe I should call my colleagues.”)
whocares:
How many professors at Berkley have washed dishes, cut lawns, mucked stalls, picked fruit, baled hay, fished commercially, lumberjacked, run a jackhammer, pounded nails, cleaned bathrooms, or any of thousands of jobs which require brawn?
More to the point, how many would do these jobs?
Maybe you are the one who is ignorant? Why does it bother you so much that I said the professors at Berkley havent done manual work? Would it have been better if I said most or many havent done physical work?
You are probably right that it isnt all who have not done menial work, I am sure there are some who have.
Feynman:
The way that IPAB is set up is concerning.
Byron:
No, we did NOT get that memo. When will Berkley put us on the cc list?