Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

gizmodo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#41

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

Clubber wrote: post #23
stuckinhell wrote: post #16

[flagged]

I think with a country as diverse as the US, balkanization is preferred. It's really by design, states have autonomy over citizens and the federal government presides over national issues. Unfortunately, the federal government has gained more and more power and tries to pass laws that half the country doesn't want. The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. It's a good…

>The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half.

Can you give some examples? I'd say centralization of power has been mostly one sided for the past century or so. (FDR, JFK, LBJ)

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#42

Post by norwalkbear »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #34
stuckinhell wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State power usage in political agenda's needs to be carefully evaluated, or it can lead to revolutions or disintegration. When state power is used to serve political agendas, it can be easily abused for personal or party gain. This can lead to corruption, nepotism, and favoritism, which undermines the integrity of the government and erodes public trust in the system. Something we already see in many states, Californi…

I know but "the interests of the people" is just as vague as "the greater good." When you get to the point of actually defining those interests and deciding what will further them, you're at political agenda.

Seems a bit pedantic here. But partisan political agendas like in CA and TX are clearly not the same as a neutral political agenda.

I think most people here understood political agenda as partisan term here.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#44

Post by claytongulick »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #18
stuckinhell wrote: post #16

[flagged]

I'm genuinely kinda curious what you think state power is for if not to serve political agendas. And outside of some abstract unactionable thing like "for the greater good" or "freedom" or whatever. Eventually you have to actually form policies and implement them, a political process driven by political motivations.

It depends on the specific power you're discussing.

Executive state power is supposed to be used to enforce laws on the books, regardless of whether the current political party agrees with them. If there's disagreement, there's a legislative process to follow.

Abusing executive power to selectively enforce, or harass, is obviously deeply problematic in a liberal society.

Legislative state power is where your points hit home. Absolutely, by all means, enact the laws that you're able to based upon the elected legislation. As long as it squares with the state and federal constitution, you're golden.

Judicial powers bent to political purposes are an absolute horror and should be rooted out as quickly as possible.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#45

Post by norwalkbear »

Vt71fcAqt7 wrote: post #41
Clubber wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think with a country as diverse as the US, balkanization is preferred. It's really by design, states have autonomy over citizens and the federal government presides over national issues. Unfortunately, the federal government has gained more and more power and tries to pass laws that half the country doesn't want. The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. It's a good…

>The next political party gets in power and does the same thing, except for the other half. Can you give some examples? I'd say centralization of power has been mostly one sided for the past century or so. (FDR, JFK, LBJ)

George Bush and the Patriot act

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#46

Post by seattle_spring »

vuln wrote: post #39
badwolf wrote: post #5

Texas Republicans sure do love their "free market" and just hate regulations...

Okay, do California and Walgreens next.

What about it? Why would a state want to do business with a pharmacy that refuses to provide necessary healthcare to women?

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#47

Post by [deleted] »

egberts1 wrote: post #19
stuckinhell wrote: post #16

[flagged]

Balkanization of corporations is a good thing. It enables more competitions to fill in the void and hopefully cheaper prices. But an outright ban is worse for the economy as less competition means higher prices. Apparently, Gov. Gavin didn't or hasn't studied this President Nixon's failed regulation of gas price

[deleted]

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#48

Post by Vt71fcAqt7 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #28
fallingfrog wrote: post #24

So they are expanding the definition of "woke" to include caring about the climate now? It's almost like they're trying to create a blanket phrase for "everything we don't like" regardless of whether those things have anything to do with each other.

If I can hypothesize: I think what is going on is that conservatism posits that the world is ordered according to a strict hierarchy and order, and rules given by an authority. There is a purpose for everything and a plan for everyone, and that plan is simple and laid out according to specific rules that are easy to understand. And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, an…

>if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts

Can you explain what good is in your abstract concepts?

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#49

Post by UncleMeat »

claytongulick wrote: post #35
UncleMeat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Confederacy placed enormous control in the centralized government. It was not a contest between a loose collection of states and a centralized federal power.

Can you describe this more, or link to some materials? I'm not familiar with it. Are we talking about temporary war powers, or was this the long term government structure that would have been powerfully centralized? If accurate, it would certainly change my understanding of the ideals of the confederacy.

Many people claim that the civil war was over state vs federal authority. They are wrong and have, at best, been duped by lost causers and white supremacists.

For example, it was written into the constitution of the confederacy that no state could ban slavery. The confederacy also had strong centralized control over things like money. These were not temporary powers.

Re: Texas Is Coming for 'Woke' Insurance Companies Next

#50

Post by CodeWriter23 »

stuckinhell wrote: post #16

[flagged]

> This can't be a good thing long term.

This is exactly a good thing long term.

Instead of HIPPO decisions, the states are serving as laboratories and experimenting with ideas to see which have the most merit. This is their role in The Union as intended by The Founders.

WEF/ESG assumes their choices lead to sustainability - there's no proof that the underlying methods of those choices are actually sustainable. That proof won't be available for decades. ESG without deeply examining issues like environmental impact of Wind Turbine/Solar Panel/Li-Ion Battery recycling, lifespan of alternative energy sources, mining, supply chain / global conflict, additional sunk carbon for manufacturing, manufacturing waste, electrical generation realities, or, as Texas is making clear here, financial and economic realities, ESG chooses to prematurely declare its ideas as winners.

Different does not imply improvement.

I'm for examining both pathways because it can only increase understanding.

Post reply on HN