Check It Out on for Thursday, May 21st

Check It Out on a warm third Thursday in May contains these excerpts:

The Commonwealth Fund reports on its study comparing how Medicare and Employer Coverage stack up meeting enrollees' needs.

"In a national Commonwealth Fund survey, elderly Medicare beneficiaries reported greater overall satisfaction with their health coverage, better access to care, and fewer problems paying medical bills than people covered by employer-sponsored plans. The findings bolster the argument that offering a public insurance plan similar to Medicare to the under-65 population has the potential to improve access and reduce costs.

"Much of the current health reform debate revolves around whether a public plan similar to Medicare should be made available to employers and individuals under age 65. The primary advantage of a Medicare-like plan is the cost reduction made possible by such a plan’s vast purchasing power and efficient public administration. Private coverage, on the other hand, can offer a greater variety of benefits, more flexibility in managing care, and more selective provider networks. In this study, the researchers sought to compare individuals with employer-sponsored plans and elderly individuals with Medicare to find out if a public plan could potentially improve access to necessary services and reduce the burden of medical bills for individuals under age 65.

"Offering the choice of a Medicare-sponsored public plan to those under age 65 would likely increase access to care, reduce administrative burden, and offer people security of coverage, and could possibly contribute to greater competition among both public and private insurers—thereby increasing responsiveness to consumers’ needs."

Jeremy Scahill writes at The Nation that KBR, a war profiteering company received bonuses from the Pentagon for work that killed US soldiers.

"The Department of Defense paid former Halliburton subsidiary KBR more than $80 million in bonuses for contracts to install electrical wiring in Iraq. The award payments were for the very work that resulted in the electrocution deaths of US soldiers, according to Department of Defense documents revealed today in a Senate hearing. More than $30 million in bonuses were paid months after the death of Sgt. Ryan Maseth, a highly decorated, 24-year-old Green Beret, who was electrocuted while taking a show at a US base in January 2008. His death, the result of improper grounding for a water pump, has been classified by the US Army Criminal Investigations Division (CID) as a "negligent homicide." Maseth's death had originally been labeled an accident. Bonuses were paid to KBR in 2007 and 2008, after CID investigators had officially expressed concerns about the quality of KBR's electrical work. For its part, KBR denies any culpability for the electrocution deaths. 

"This information was revealed at a hearing of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. According to the committee's chair, Sen. Byron Dorgan, the rewards KBR received under its LOGCAP contracts were supposed to be for work of the "highest quality" with "no deficiencies" or problems. Dorgan said KBR's work was "shoddy" and "unprofessional." Some eighteen US soldiers have died since 2003 as a result of KBR's "shoddy work," according to Sen. Frank Lautenberg. KBR/Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was chairman and CEO from 1995 to 2000, has been the single largest corporate beneficiary of the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It continues to operate globally on US government contracts.


"Charles Smith, the former Army official who managed the contracts under which KBR performed electrical work in Iraq, testified that it was "highly inappropriate" that KBR received these bonuses for what he called "dangerously substandard" work. He said that the Army was well aware of KBR's "poor performance" since the beginning of the Iraq invasion, and yet continued to reward KBR because the military was "afraid" KBR would cease work. He said there was "a culture that decided KBR was too big to fail and too important to be held to account." The "perverse incentive is that there was no incentive" for KBR to do quality work because they received bonuses for poor work." 


Glenn Greenwald at Salon weighs in on Obama's Gitmo speech.


"Obama's speech this morning, like most Obama speeches, made pretty points in rhetorically effective ways about the Constitution, our values, transparency, oversight, the state secrets privilege, and the rule of law.  But his actions, in many critical cases, have repeatedly run afoul of those words.  And while his well-crafted speech can have a positive impact on our debate and contained some welcome and rare arguments from a high-level political leader -- changes in the terms of the debate are prerequisites to changes in policy and the value of rhetoric shouldn't be understated -- they're still just words until his actions become consistent with them.


"Worse, Obama repeatedly invoked the paradigm of The War on Terror to justify some extreme policies -- see my post of earlier today on this practice -- beginning with his rather startling declaration that he will work to create a system of "preventive detention" for accused Terrorists without a trial, in order to keep locked up indefinitely people who, in his words, "cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people."  In other words, even as he paid repeated homage to "our values" and "our timeless ideals," he demanded the power (albeit with unspecified judicial and Congressional oversight) to keep people in prison with no charges or proof of any crime having been committed, all while emphasizing that this "war" will continue for at least ten years.  Compare the power of indefinite, "preventive" detention he's seeking to this:

"I consider [trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789. ME 7:408, Papers 15:269.


Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."  Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 533 (1953) (Jackson, J.) (conc. op.).

"Similarly, he simultaneously paid homage to "rule of law" while demanding that there be no investigations or accountability for those who repeatedly broke the law. 


"The speech was fairly representative of what Obama typically does:  effectively defend some important ideals in a uniquely persuasive way and advocating some policies that promote those ideals (closing Guantanamo, banning torture tactics, limiting the state secrets privilege) while committing to many which plainly violate them (indefinite preventive detention schemes, military commissions, denial of habeas rights to Bagram abductees, concealing torture evidence, blocking judicial review on secrecy grounds).  Like all political officials, Obama should be judged based on his actions and decisions, not his words and alleged intentions and motives.  Those actions in the civil liberties realm, with some exceptions, have been profoundly at odds with his claimed principles, and this speech hasn't changed that.  Only actions will.


"The fact that a Democratic President who ran on a platform of restoring Constitutional principles -- along with huge hordes of his supporters -- will now advocate creating and institutionalizing a system of indefinite detentions with no trial and no charges of lawbreaking (not only for current detainees but also future ones) is a pretty remarkable event."


Michael Grabell and David Epstein at ProPublica enlighten readers about contractors with prior questionable records receiving economic stimulus funds.


"One company paid nearly $1 million for destroying seagrass in the Florida Keys marine sanctuary. Another settled a discrimination case after federal investigators found it refused to hire black employees. A third firm was rebuked by the Army for poorly screening interrogators it hired – interrogators who later abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib.


"Despite those problems, the three companies have won millions of dollars in contracts under the economic stimulus package.


"One company receiving stimulus money, CACI International, has won three contracts worth $1.5 million to provide contracting specialists to the Forest Service. The consultants will help the agency evaluate projects so that it can spend stimulus money quickly.


"CACI came under fire in a 2004 Army investigation [3], which found that interrogators it provided for the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had dragged a handcuffed prisoner along the ground, placed a prisoner in an "unauthorized stress position" and violated the ban on drinking alcohol.


"The investigation found that the company had an insufficient screening process and hired employees who "lacked sufficient background and training." One CACI employee, who bragged about dressing a prisoner in women’s underwear and lied to investigators about using dogs in interrogations, had "little or no interrogator experience" before Abu Ghraib, the report said."


 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
  • No comments exist for this post.
Leave a comment

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Name

 Email (will not be published)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.