War without a General: a sure path to defeat
“You need a general,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and chairman of the health subcommittee of the Finance Committee. Of the job vacancy, Mr. Rockefeller said: “It’s a big problem. I can’t explain it.”
The Obama administration has yet to fill the role of CEO (though they don't call it that - the government avoids the term) for "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" - the organization which oversees the government healthcare plans.
It is quite a surprising oversight by the administration, seeing as they have put healthcare reform at the top of the priority list.
Of course, part of it could be that Obama had earmarked the spot of Health and Human Service Secretary for the ultimate scumbag of Washington: Tom Daschle. Tom had worked hard for Obama through the campaign, and the position had been publically promised to him (in Washington terms) since Obama won the primary.
Of course, he could not take the job, because it turns out he took free services (limo, driver) from a "friend," and then did not realize he would have to report it to the IRS. Whoops. The man with no morals is amusingly enough currently selling his "consulting services" to United - the private company which is to blame for much of the public hatred of private companies, and a private company which is firmly opposed to public healthcare. Oh yeah, and all this is after he authored a book supporting public healthcare. In other words, Tom Daschle would sell his soul for a nickel and a newspaper article.
This all becomes more amusing because Obama promised not to hire lobbyists into his administration - he has hired 20+ so far, and tried to get Daschle in.
Tom Daschle is a bit of a sidetrack, as he was never up for the job of running Medi(care/caid), but the speculation is that without a health secretary Obama did not want to move on an administrator - essentially the position one below that of the secretary.
So there you have it, we don’t have anyone running Medicare or Medicaid in the middle of the biggest healthcare reform effort since the New Deal because Obama wanted to give a Secretary position to an ex-Senator lobbyist who helped his campaign.
So much for "ethical" and "interest-free" - not that they were ever big concerns of mine to begin with. At this point I would very happily settle for "ineffective." I used to think that an ineffective government was a bad thing: all through the healthcare debate I have been hoping the government did not have the ability to ramrod the bill through. Part of it has been that no one knows what is going on. The Blue Crosses are running around asking why they are not the health care co-ops of choice, and if they will qualify. American people were concerned and unsure of what they will be getting and what they will be paying. And Medicare and Medicaid really had no idea what was going to happen if the US went to a single payer system.
Perhaps it would have been good to have a general or two to fight the war...
The Obama administration has yet to fill the role of CEO (though they don't call it that - the government avoids the term) for "Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services" - the organization which oversees the government healthcare plans.
It is quite a surprising oversight by the administration, seeing as they have put healthcare reform at the top of the priority list.
Of course, part of it could be that Obama had earmarked the spot of Health and Human Service Secretary for the ultimate scumbag of Washington: Tom Daschle. Tom had worked hard for Obama through the campaign, and the position had been publically promised to him (in Washington terms) since Obama won the primary.
Of course, he could not take the job, because it turns out he took free services (limo, driver) from a "friend," and then did not realize he would have to report it to the IRS. Whoops. The man with no morals is amusingly enough currently selling his "consulting services" to United - the private company which is to blame for much of the public hatred of private companies, and a private company which is firmly opposed to public healthcare. Oh yeah, and all this is after he authored a book supporting public healthcare. In other words, Tom Daschle would sell his soul for a nickel and a newspaper article.
This all becomes more amusing because Obama promised not to hire lobbyists into his administration - he has hired 20+ so far, and tried to get Daschle in.
Tom Daschle is a bit of a sidetrack, as he was never up for the job of running Medi(care/caid), but the speculation is that without a health secretary Obama did not want to move on an administrator - essentially the position one below that of the secretary.
So there you have it, we don’t have anyone running Medicare or Medicaid in the middle of the biggest healthcare reform effort since the New Deal because Obama wanted to give a Secretary position to an ex-Senator lobbyist who helped his campaign.
So much for "ethical" and "interest-free" - not that they were ever big concerns of mine to begin with. At this point I would very happily settle for "ineffective." I used to think that an ineffective government was a bad thing: all through the healthcare debate I have been hoping the government did not have the ability to ramrod the bill through. Part of it has been that no one knows what is going on. The Blue Crosses are running around asking why they are not the health care co-ops of choice, and if they will qualify. American people were concerned and unsure of what they will be getting and what they will be paying. And Medicare and Medicaid really had no idea what was going to happen if the US went to a single payer system.
Perhaps it would have been good to have a general or two to fight the war...
Comments
Post a Comment