In an earlier post the question of political contributions and transparency in Government Conracting was discussed.
Now comes political analyst Michael Barone, writing in The Washington Examiner, about Federal Government favoritism with regard to waivers to the mandates of the Reid/Pelosi Health Insurance Reform Bill.
If we are granting waivers under the current reform, will we be granting waivers to millions if we, God forbid, move to an individual mandate?
Regards — Cliff
7 comments:
I was also interested to note the current testimony in the DiMasi trial, confirming that contributors do receive preferential treatment by our lawmakers in this State. Can't help by know that the same occurs at the Federal level. And just because it doesn't occur as frequently on the smaller contracts we may see, doesn't reduce the inevitability that it occurs on the larger items. I expect that the current healthcare laws are profoundly influenced by major contributors to both parties, from pharmaceutical companies, to insurers, to medical groups. I, for one, would like to have a better record of the contributions, and who received them, so to more easily assess areas of potential bias. Waivers are just one other way that corruption enters the system.
*clears throat*
Republican leaders on and off Capitol Hill had slammed the Obama administration for granting a growing number of healthcare reform waivers to constituents of the top House Democrat, suggesting they received special treatment.
But Hilarie Aitken, co-owner of Flex-Plan Services, Inc., which filed the waiver applications on behalf of dozens of businesses, said that’s simply not the case.
“It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi,” Aitken told The Hill, “and it's really unfortunate that this has turned into such a political story.
“I usually vote Republican,” Aitken added, “and I'm a little bit ashamed at where the Republicans have taken this.”
Cliff, you know how I lust for you teeing up a soft parrot point.
*clears throat*
But Hilarie Aitken, co-owner of Flex-Plan Services, Inc., which filed the waiver applications on behalf of dozens of businesses, said that’s simply not the case.
“It had nothing to do with Nancy Pelosi,” Aitken told The Hill, “and it's really unfortunate that this has turned into such a political story.
“I usually vote Republican,” Aitken added, “and I'm a little bit ashamed at where the Republicans have taken this.”
Cliff, you know how I lust for you to tee up a soft parrot point.
Not that I can substantiate my opinion with actual, irrefutable data (probably because it simply doesn't exist having been "inadvertently lost"), I would suggest that preferential treatment is AT LEAST as bad at the Federal level, if not more egregious simply on the basis of scope, among other factors.
And I think what we would find were we privy to REAL information, that many of the prime players are playing both sides against a middle.....some nebulous point in an infinite sea of gray. Certainly, Big Pharma has already been shown to be craven in their attentions to the power player du jour...and not above trying to cultivate the big sticks of tomorrow. I seriously doubt that the "insurance industry" is a loyal opposer to nationalized health care. There is simply too much gold in them thar hills. One might conceivably see some brand consolidation to protect the guilty, but at some point in a single payer scheme....big insurance will play a big...and expensive role. Didn't Romneycare prove that already?
Kad, if we knew rather than just suspected where bias exists, what could we possibly do about each instance? At the end of the day, we have to return to the very body politic that gave rise to the bias in the first place. I think it is called "whitewash" and "coverup." Waivers by the way are the method AND the media by which corruption proceeds along its merry way. Everyone is treated equally, except that some are more equal than others. Isn't it amazing that a HUGE number of waivers emanate from Pelosi's district. Oh..just a coincidence..there is no "proof."
Will Rogers and Mark Twain are perhaps our most authoritative reference to the state and efficacy of politicians and the political process. We really should learn from them.
Open corruption is far less flattering to the participants than the hidden kind, at least until it may all come to light. I have a personal objection to the "status" afforded corrupt politicians who hide their corruption, (moralizing politicians who practice what they preach against, etc.), and feel that, if nothing else, the potential for public shame for their political misdeeds is better than no measure against it at all.
Again, I'm not suggesting it's a solution, but I feel very strongly that any step we can take in the direction of transparency, however poorly enforced or imperfectly fair, is better than resigning ourselves to the secret pursuit of backroom payoffs and other deals.
and I for one certainly agree with you Kad. But it is an endless engagement that we pursue as greed for all things will always find a way to satisfy itself.
I guess I am simply observing what is for the moment, not what we could be or should be in the future. I would be the first to join the battle against those who are "entitled" without our permission.
Hope springs..........
While Ms Hilarie Aitken may state that there was no political motivation in her applications for waivers to the Affordable Healthcare Act, the fact is that the lack of transparency (we don't know who was denied a waiver) and the cluster of her requests and the large number of waivers do have a whiff of corruption.
And, the fact that waivers are being granted at all raises fundamental questions about the Act itself.
On the other hand, it may be a case of "we gore our own last".
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment