This discussion on the Arbitration system was for the most
part a rehash of information and arguments that are well known. The
corporations hate and detest Class Action lawsuits. As with most issues, it's
complicated. There are good arguments against Class Action suits and yet there's
no doubt that many of them are essentially frivolous endeavours that accomplish
little more than enriching lawyers.
Nevertheless, when one understands the nature of taking on
large corporations and their virtually endless resources and their ability to
win by attrition and to overwhelm plaintiffs (and juries) with financially
backed 'experts', then it's easy to see why the Class Action serves a purpose.
John Grisham's works are helpful in this. He takes a lot of
these issues and in the process of fictionalising them, makes the learning both
interesting and entertaining. If anything it spurs you on to look into these
issues. For those who are overwhelmed by these issues, his novels are a great
place to gain some familiarity with basic concepts and procedures.
One point in this discussion really made me perk up and that
was the bit about the Wall Street group getting together and pushing for further
codification and vindication of the parallel justice system that is Third-Party
Arbitration. The fact that John Roberts as a corporate lawyer represented these
people and pushed the case to the Supreme Court was quite noteworthy. The fact
that later after the court became The Roberts Court, that this issue was heard
again and given the court's approval... well, that was something reminiscent of
a Grisham plot.
In 'The Appeal', Grisham imagines a powerful corporate force
working to have a judge put on the Supreme Court that will tip a case that's on
appeal. Of course Grisham weaves in multiple threads of plotlines and
characters and the case is about industrial pollution and cancer clusters, a
totally different issue. Yet, it was interesting to consider the possibilities.
I remember some thought it was far-fetched, just as his storyline in 'The
Pelican Brief' wherein two SCOTUS justices are assassinated due to a corporation
that wants to utilize its White House ally to tilt the court with two new appointments.
Are these stories far-fetched? There's no doubt authors like Grisham utilize
hyperbole to make their points but in other instances, if you're paying attention,
you realize some of these ideas aren't all that implausible. If you can get past
the dressing-up that's used to make for an exciting story, you'll see there are
plenty of real-world analogies.
Reality is a little more subtle and no doubt a little more nebulous
and sloppy, but the fact that Roberts ended up on the court was I'm sure in the
end the fruit of a very deliberate agenda. This is true of any of these
appointments. The presidents don't usually know these people. They rely on the
recommendations of counselors, many of whom have connections, interests and
certainly backers-- in the sense that they're always thinking ahead to what
awaits them after their time in the administration. Lobbying for this or that
appointee, for certain issues and the representation of powerful interests,
insures lucrative positions and portfolios in the private sector.
Arbitration is a corrupt and parallel 'justice' system, that
seeks to cut costs for the corporations, avoid the entanglements of juries,
legal procedures and precedent. The arbiters, largely former judges and lawyers
are necessarily corrupt. If they don't acquiesce to company wishes they won't
get selected. The money is nice, easy and certainly very tempting.
The guest expressed it well. People are signing away their
constitutional rights. The whole arbitration system should be dispensed with
but that can never happen until the legal and judicial system (as a whole) is
reformed, and that's not too likely. Arbitration takes on an even more sinister
character when it comes to multi-national companies and in particular some of
the overseas 'contractors' that utilize this system to circumvent US criminal
law. They can argue it doesn't apply in foreign jurisdictions (like the Guantanamo
argument) and in some cases arbiters are clearly ruling on issues that belong
in a criminal court.
This also illustrates once again the societal trend that is
often misunderstood, especially by conservatives. There's no doubt that in
terms of the social morality, the Left is winning. In that sense, personal
libertarianism is making great advances. Its ethics are rooted in personal
liberty and ultimately mean that absent a social consensus, our society will
move in a more permissive direction. There are positives and negatives to this
and like all social paradigms, it's ultimately self-destructive. That's equally
true of the Christian Conservative social model. We're seeing it right now. It
reached its limits and has imploded. We are currently living the backlash.
And yet for all the victories of the Left, true liberals will
point out that conservatives in terms of business and economics are making
great strides. The Neo-liberal Capitalist agenda, the agenda of the
Establishment and the official platform of the Republican Party continues to
advance regardless of what party holds office. There are many who don't believe
this is the case due to the massive increase in regulatory activity. But this
also demonstrates their misunderstanding of investment. While risk is an
element, the real necessity is security and stability. The regulations are in
some cases a result of government bureaucrats and activists pushing their
agendas and securing power. But in many, if not most cases, the regulatory
apparatus is a tool of corporate monopolies. Certain corporate sectors are
exercising control of society and setting the parameters of the market. By
controlling the playing field they manipulate the market that is society, its
economics and perceptions as well as all but eradicate competition. And most
important of all, the regulatory regime in addition to forcing out small-scale
competitors it also all but eliminates risk.
As these entities become monopolistic enterprises the state
takes interest in their security and perpetuity. The corporate sector whether
we are speaking of banking, medicine, resources, industry or utilities become
strategic. The Corporatocracy is the victory of Capitalism, it is
Meta-Capitalism, the offspring of the monopolistic system. Globalisation is
merely the next phase in which Capitalism's necessarily imperial tendencies are
vindicated and mandated by the Corporate-State system which seeks resources and
labour in the multinational realm.
Libertarians of the capitalist stripe, so-called Right
Libertarians wish to see the state all but eradicated and there's doubt they're
making great strides in the political and social realm. Yet, they do not
represent Capitalism on the street or Realkapitalism
if we can coin an expression. The Right Libertarians are essentially an Ivory
Tower academic movement that doesn't represent Capitalism functioning in a real
world system. In another sense it could be argued their models were at one time
implemented and practiced during the 19th and early 20th
century, during the late Industrial but pre-Technological era. Many academics
and scholars believe their policies led to a worldwide depression and in the
Developing World where their policies still carry weight, they have led to the
eradication of the Middle Class and dangerous social instability. These same
people criticise the Corporatocracy or Crony-Capitalism but fail to understand
it is a necessary and inevitable outcome of the profit-system they champion.
They are divorced from both doctrinal and historical reality. And interestingly
in the lands where these unrestrained Neoliberal policies still hold sway, the
ruling class or overlords whether it be in South America or Africa ultimately
become the agents of the Multinational powers. Their survival and flourishing
are still dependent on the Globalist system. They become the middle-men
providing markets, labour and resources for the bigger players. If they were to
reject to the Globalist paradigm they would quickly succumb to economic forces,
but long before that they would be subjected to violence.
And yet it must also be pointed out that in these lands of
weak regulation, the regimes must utilize extreme versions of the security
state. The police and army are given tremendous powers to quash protests and
control information.
The truth is that corporations and the Capitalist profit
system are necessarily wedded to the nation state. They both want and need the
judiciary to craft and secure contract law. They require police to enforce
these laws and they certainly need a diplomatic corps and a military to secure
their interests, help in the procurement of resources and to guarantee access
to foreign markets. Corporations don't necessarily want less government. They
simply want the government to secure their interests and do their bidding.
This is very much the reality in the modern West. It takes
different forms in the United States and Europe but both realms are all but
wholly subjugated to this model.
A final note on Roberts. He has been labeled a 'liberal' by
some for his critical vote in upholding the Affordable Care Act and yet his
support for that legislation further demonstrates the point I've been making
above. The key planks of the ACA were proposed by the Heritage Foundation as a
corporate response to the push for genuine socialised medicine... the so-called
single payer system. At one time the trend was viewed as inevitable so
corporate interests employed their Think-Tank whores and cronies to craft the
plan. The Republican Party has continued to shift far to the Right and back in
the 1980's and 1990's a plan like the ACA was viewed as a conservative
alternative to a socialist model.
By the 2000's, the ACA was decried as too socialistic and
liberal and yet many seem to forget the plan was supported by the insurance sector
and most of the medical industry. Obama, rather than champion the leftist cause
and take on the Corporate Establishment, threw them a bone and yet was able to
score a political victory with a large segment of the public.
Thus far, the only real winners are the people who had been
previously excluded due to pre-existing conditions and those who have benefitted
from Medicaid expansion. Others who have been forced from employer-based
coverage and pushed onto the private market have in some cases benefitted from
tremendous subsidies. But that hasn't lowered prices. And it must be said that
most of the plans are something of a scam. You're covered if you end up with
surgery or long term hospitalisation but in terms of regular health-care, it's
all out-of-pocket due to the large deductibles. I know from years of experience
that Self-Pay is not a viable option. You will quickly become mired in debt as
you pay inflated prices that are not geared to a retail consumer but to an
institutional bargaining process. The power to bargain is something the
individual does not have. The poor would get stuck with a bill two and three
times the price an insurance company would pay.
The insurance industry is continuing to raise the prices, in
part because so many states have failed to expand Medicaid thus eliminating the
ACA's guarantee of universality. The Roberts Court by removing the state
mandate afforded governors tremendous power and the ability to politicise the
budgetary aspects of the issue. I'm sure the corporate backers were less than
pleased on this particular aspect of the ACA ruling. So as usual the truth and
the interpretation of it are never cut and dry. Roberts ruling was neither
wholly liberal nor entirely pleasing to the conservatives either.
The danger of pushing so many onto the private market is that
the prices can continue to rise and if the subsidies are removed, then suddenly
the ACA will represent a form of slavery for many... not to the government, but
to the insurance industry, with the IRS as its enforcer. Many will opt to pay
fines instead of procuring coverage and they will still be left high and dry in
terms of health care. Contrary to the uninformed arguments of some, health 'insurance'
is no longer about managed risk, it's simply a question of 'access' to care and
the pricing that is only slightly less criminal than what a Self-Pay patient
encounters.
This is why the Left continues to insist the ACA was
something of a scam and that the only solution is a single payer system and the
elimination of the medical insurance industry.
The Libertarian wing is for the most part unwilling to argue
for the complete deregulation of the medical industry. There are a few voices
who advocate this, but most people who are informed beyond the purely monetary
issues realize just how implausible and perhaps dangerous this suggestion is.
In addition it must be pointed out that there's no guarantee this will in fact
make prices go down. Apart from massive tort reform it wouldn't work anyway. So
for a Libertarian model to work, you would have to deregulate the industry and
reform the entire judicial system at the same time. That's revolutionary and
would represent something of a political coup. It will never be implemented by
a legislative body.
Prices might drop, but in the end we'd have something a
Wal-Mart effect. But we're not talking about cheap plastic junk that breaks an
hour after you bring it home. The ramifications are quite different, and only
by eliminating the dangers of malpractice lawsuits is this model even
plausible. And yet as egregious and morally dubious as many malpractice suits
are... such a deregulated system would all but guarantee dangerously
substandard healthcare for the Middle Class and virtually none for the poor. Only
the wealthy would have access to viable quality health care and coverage. The
wealthy would have options and thus something of a market. The Middle and Lower
classes would end up with no options and no recourse.
Some are content with such a model. It's what one should
expect from the Social Darwinist thinking inherent in Neoliberal and
Libertarian ethics. It's a pagan and inhuman way to view and relate to your fellow
man. And yet aside from all ethical considerations the public will not accept
such a model. We've been operating under something close to that and over the
past several decades we've been slowly moving in that direction. There was a
significant outcry, and thus the creation of the ACA.
What's the solution? As always the issues are complicated but
one continues to be baffled if not offended at the position most Christians
have taken, siding with economic theory, natural law and Social Darwinist type arguments
rather than genuinely viewing the issue from a Christian perspective. Even if
you don't believe the state can or should implement Christian ethics, which
indeed it cannot, it does not mean that for the sake of political expediency
that we as Christians can adopt specifically anti-Christian ethical positions. If we are mandated to love
neighbour as self and to seek the interests of others and if this is
essentially incompatible with sociological and political models, which I would
argue it is... then our duty is to withdraw from the system, remain ethically
above the fray and retain our prophetic witness. As far as our own finances,
it's Caesar's money and system. We're not to be overly concerned about it. We
are to pay the taxes and operate within the system. That doesn't mean we are to
sign on with it, work within it, work to undermine it or support it. We live
'with' it as strangers and pilgrims.
Yes, our money and all that we have belong to God, but we
surrender these temporal things to the Providential means God has provided. We
render the coin to Caesar because it's his. We pay taxes to evil states. We use
their idolatrous coinage but we don't invest in their system. We can use their
health-care and take their tax credits. And when they take them away, then we
won't have them. Either way our status as pilgrims and our witness to God's
glory and the Coming of Christ stay the same.
We are to be concerned about truth telling and we are to
proclaim it even if (like Isaiah) we know that for the most part very few will
listen. That's our calling, not to seek dominion in This Age. The ACA is in the
end a wicked system but no more (and perhaps less) wicked than the status quo
before its passage. Some solutions might prove better, or worse. We watch,
listen and tell the truth, but in the end regardless of the system we live
under we eschew the temptations of power and mammon and adhere tenaciously to
our calling as martyr-witnesses.
