July 23, 2019

College Admissions Scandal: Like It’s Something New

This is all a joke….right? As though the idea of somebody bribing somebody else for preferred treatment is something new. This has to at least be the second oldest profession in the world.

I smell a Hegelian Dialectic dirty rat here.

With laughter, I was reading an opinion piece in Bloomberg. It’s all about hypocrisy and the failure to uphold the mythological egalitarian standard that’s as steadfast in our culture as moral idealism. But, this doesn’t mean some of the things the opinion writer said don’t apply. For instance:

“Yet most top schools tolerate rampant grade inflation and gently shepherd their students toward graduation.”

No kidding! Much like finding a cure for “cancer” or __________ (take your pick) there is no profit to be made. So long as “money” finds its way into the coffers of the brain(less) factories, the odds of these universalities (correct word) latching hold of long term donations into the future stands to profit the school.

So what else is new. Did everybody just wake up as they were dumped off the turnip truck? Why all the fuss over bribery?

What else did the opinion writer have to say? “My second worry is that the number of bribery cases suggests that many wealthy Americans perceive higher education to be an ethics-free, law-free zone where the only restraint on your behavior is whatever you can get away with.”

Oh, shucks! It isn’t? Since when? The Left, through the power of the infiltration of the Jesuits into every facet of our lives, including education, controls every aspect of who gets into the universities that do the brainwashing necessary to perpetuate the evil that rules. More on this in a moment.

“Like most of us, I draw a distinction between laws we are expected to follow, and laws we aren’t.”

And where does the hypocrisy lie? Isn’t this part of the moral decay of a society that “draw[s] a distinction between laws we are expected to follow and laws we aren’t?” What, therefore, is the purpose of instituting laws to begin with. If society deems that only those laws that apply to their social culture should be obeyed (progressivism), then why are we, in our own hypocritical immorality finding unbelievability in the fact that bribing is a mainstay of American culture?

“They take [those involved in the scandal] its governing rules as optional and conditional, depending on convenience, much as we do many speed-limit signs.”

Again, I ask, since when is it a shock that “governing rules” are viewed as “optional and conditional?” The U.S. Government lives in that realm in their entire existence. We might sputter and carry on but we tolerate it, probably because that is the way we would prefer to live. Rules are for everybody else…right?

“These inegalitarian results are tolerated, even engineered, by the very same American institutions that pride themselves on their supposedly egalitarian values.”

AMEN! Once again I have to ask if this is, in fact, the common theme within our manufactured, immoral, in your face, decadent and perverse culture?

I may be critical of the hypocrisy, and also the hypocrisy of hypocrisy, but I’m not suggesting, because somehow those who are as guilty as those wanting to cast the first stones, seem to be gasping at this “illegal” behavior, it is somehow right and should be overlooked. On the contrary. Until such time as a society can go back and find Truth from their Creator, prepare for much worse – “Strong Delusion.”

In a society that finds that murdering babies up until the day they are born acceptable, why then are we spending so much time focusing on bribery as though it was some new phenomenon; a sin greater than murder?

Perhaps there is more to this bribery “scandal” than most know…or want to know. Nothing is ever what it seems. Certainly some of you have learned that over the years.

The Global Power Structure must ensure that they manufacture their leaders of the future. Because the Jesuits, the Society of Jesus, the military arm of the Vatican, controls every level of our education establishments, it is necessary for them to guarantee that sought-after candidates (those easy to brainwash) are given a seat in the universities of their (the Vatican’s) choosing. Because the Jesuits control every aspect of our lives, this will include representation in sports, wealth, politics, teaching, news reporting, etc. etc. etc. With this knowledge, one must ask who is really behind this so-called “bribery scandal” and is the Media’s insistence on embellishing a fake crisis all just part of the scam?

What’s in your wallet?

Share

VA Scandal Will Happen Again

Press Release from National Center for Public Policy Research:

VA Scandal Will Happen Again as Long as Bureaucracy Runs Veterans’ Health Care

Bureaucrats at VA Face Incentives to Manipulate Wait-Time Data

Wait-Time Scandal Was Not Caused By Veterans Moving to ‘Sun Belt’ Areas

Washington DC – “There have been a lot of explanations for the wait-times scandal at the Veterans Administration, but it all comes down to the incentives that bureaucrats face,” says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. “Veterans will eventually suffer like this again as long as a bureaucracy is in charge.”

Dr. Hogberg’s new National Policy Analysis paper, “Veterans Will Suffer Another Scandal As Long As Bureaucracy Runs Their Health Care,” begins by examining Phillip Longman’s explanation for the scandal. Longman, whose book Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Health Care Is Better Than Yours is partially to blame for the scandal, argues that VA facilities in the Sun Belt states were too overwhelmed due to heavy migration of veterans to those state.

“The evidence doesn’t support that explanation,” says Dr. Hogberg. “The fact is there were just as many facilities outside the Sun Belt that had wait-time problems.”

The root of the problem lies in the incentives faced by bureaucrats at the VA.

“The VA faces no financial consequence for poor treatment of veterans,” said Dr. Hogberg. “The VA’s funding comes from Congress and the Administration, not the veterans themselves. If veterans controlled the money directly and could take it elsewhere, the VA would treat veterans much better.”

Hogberg notes that there is also no consequence for employees at the VA if they manipulate the data on wait-times to make it look better than it is. Most employees at the VA have civil service protections that make firing them very difficult.

“I’m sure many employees at the VA are honest, but like any institution there are always folks who will cheat,” he said. “When it is almost impossible to fire such people, the result will be greater dishonesty, regardless of whether veterans suffer.”

A version of the paper is scheduled to be published by The Federalist on July 2.

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Intellectuals and Journalists Partially Responsible for Veterans’ Wait-Time Disaster

Intellectuals and Journalists Who Promoted Idea that Veterans Administration Has Best Health Care in U.S. Partially Responsible for Wait-Time Disaster

Politicians, Including President Obama and Secretary Eric Shinseki, Bought Into Ideas of Book “Best Care Anywhere”

This Caused Sense of Complacency Despite 26 Reports Examining Wait-Times from 2000-2011, New Analysis Shows

Washington DC – The Veterans Administration scandal had been brewing for years, yet was ignored by the politicians in charge because they bought into the idea promoted by intellectuals and journalists that the VA health care was the very best, says Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.

“It’s a cliche, but ideas have consequences,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Led by author Phillip Longman, intellectuals advanced the idea that VA health care was outstanding. That is, in part, responsible for the tragedies caused by VA wait-times, including the deaths of 23 veterans.”

In a new National Policy Analysis paper, Dr. Hogberg traces how Phillip Longman’s book Best Care Anywhere: Why VA Healthcare Is Better Than Yours created an amen chorus of academics, policy wonks and journalists promoting the idea that VA health care is the best in the U.S. Entitled “Intellectual and the VA: How A Bad Idea and Bad Reporting Contributed to a Health Care Catastrophe,” Dr. Hogberg’s paper further examines how Longman’s idea was absorbed by politicians who were supposed to be overseeing the VA.

The paper also is scheduled to be published by the conservative website Rare Friday.

“President Obama, VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, VA Undersecretary for Health Dr. Robert Penzel, and certain members of Congress — Longman clearly influenced their thinking on the VA,” said Dr. Hogberg. “If you believe that the VA offers the best care, you are far more likely to overlook problems such as wait-times.”

As the National Policy Analysis paper notes, there were at least 26 reports examining VA wait-times from the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General from 2000 to 2011. That should have set off alarm bells among the administration and Congress, but oversight was lax to nonexistent.

“None of the reports on wait-times are mentioned in any of the three editions of Longman’s book,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Nor are they mentioned by any of the other intellectuals who promoted his idea such as Ezra Klein, Paul Krugman, Don Berwick or Timothy Noah. By ignoring wait-times while promoting the idea that the VA had the ‘Best Care Anywhere,’ they created an atmosphere of complacency regarding the VA that led to the recent catastrophe.”

David Hogberg, Ph.D., is a health care policy analyst for the National Center for Public Policy Research. Previously, Dr. Hogberg was a Washington Correspondent for Investor’s Business Daily, specializing in health care and Medicare. Prior to his employment at IBD, he worked as a policy analyst studying health care and other issues for various think-tanks, including the National Center for Public Policy Research, and for the office of U.S. Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Dr. Hogberg holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Iowa. He is currently working on a book entitled “Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care System Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians.”
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Government Hurts Health Care

VA Scandal, ObamaCare and Other Failures All Point to one Fact: Private Health Care is Better for Patients

National Center for Public Policy Research Has Attended Seven Shareholder Meetings of Major Health Industry Companies; Meeting with CEOs; More Meetings Today and Monday

Washington DC – Whether it is the Veterans Administration, ObamaCare, or other failures and scandals, the verdict is in on government’s involvement in the health care system: it doesn’t work, say policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research, who in addition to publishing groundbreaking research, have participated in seven shareholder meetings of health care companies over the past six weeks, and will attend two more over the next week.

On Tuesday, National Center for Public Policy Research Free Enterprise Project Director Justin Danhof attended the annual meeting of Merck pharmaceuticals in New Jersey, where he had both the opportunity to ask a question in the open meeting and to meet privately with CEO Ken Frazier. He found Mr. Frazier far less bullish on government involvement in the health care system, including about ObamaCare, than at prior meetings in which National Center for Public Policy Research questioned him (see 2013 here ; 2012 here; 2011 here).

National Center for Public Policy Research Health Care Policy Analyst David Hogberg, who in recent weeks has attended the shareholder meetings of Humana, WellPoint, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Johnson & Johnson, speaking with the CEO of each, has written extensively about the problems with health care services delivery under government-run systems, including the Veterans Administration and ObamaCare. He says government-run health care is, in a word, “risky.”

At Merck, Danhof reported, “Mr. Frazier said that the company was very focused on creating a free-market environment for drug innovation where market forces dictate price and availability. Frazier said that the pharmaceutical marketplace doesn’t need outside actors interfering in pricing decisions – which I took as a direct shot at politicians such as Henry Waxman (D-CA) who have done just that.”

Danhof’s public exchange with Mr. Frazier can be seen on YouTube here.

“When I spoke privately with Mr. Frazier about specialty pharmaceuticals, he noted that with Sovaldi, its parent company Gilead Sciences, had perhaps stubbed its toe in messaging. As a result, the mainstream media focused heavily on product pricing, but ignored Sovaldi’s incredible cure rate and speed,” said Danhof. “And once the mainstream media set the narrative, certain politicians such as Waxman were ready and willing to attack this life-saving industry since they have no use for free-market capitalism. Mr. Frazier and I both agreed that the industry much do a better job going forward of educating the public about the need for, and benefits of, the specialty pharmaceutical market.”

“In response to another shareholder question about taxes, Mr. Frazier referenced his response to me about undue interference in the marketplace. He bluntly stated that the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent was very high and places American companies at a competitive disadvantage compared with European and Japanese companies that can essentially use tax arbitrage to lower rates. Mr. Frazier also noted that U.S companies are often taxed on work that simply isn’t done here in the U.S.”

“Mr. Frazier also faced three questions about ObamaCare, one general and two from retirees who are now paying more out of pocket for drugs and procedures. His answers about ObamaCare were very subdued,” noted Danhof. “Coming from a CEO that has firmly and repeatedly defended ObamaCare in the past, today Mr. Frazier could only muster that the law is still in its infancy and Merck will monitor its progress and work to ensure quality care and access. This is a far cry from a CEO who once was one of ObamaCare’s loudest backers. This shows the difference between ObamaCare the idea and ObamaCare the law.”

“President Obama’s perverse dream of inflicting government-run health care on America is quickly dying the death of a thousand cuts,” said Amy Ridenour, chairman of the National Center and author, with Ryan Balis, of the 2009 book about government-run health care systems, “Shattered Lives” (free pdf here ). “Even as ObamaCare continues its disastrous rollout, the universal truth about government health care and waiting lists has hit the headlines in the Veterans Administration scandal. Government-run health care always means waiting lists, even when officials try to fix them. In Britain, for example, higher-ups mandated an end to long waiting lists within hospital emergency departments. Since government health care doesn’t work well, the hospitals were unable to end the waiting lists in any proper way, so they dealt with new rules by forcing the patients to stay in ambulances until they were ready to see them. On paper, the waiting lists were shortened, because the clock didn’t start ticking until the patient entered the building. But were patients better served? No. Likewise, no one should expect the VA to be fixed.”

The National Center’s Justin Danhof will be attending the Aetna shareholder meeting today in Denver, at 9:30 am local time. On Monday, National Center President David Ridenour will attend United Health’s shareholder meeting in Las Vegas.

The National Center has attended 40 shareholder meetings so far in 2014. It attended 33 in 2013.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

Obama’s On First, Holder on Second and Clinton on Third

Bob: “Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?”
Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean SEAL Team 6 Extortion 17?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the voter fraud?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the military not getting their votes counted?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president demoralizing and breaking down the military?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the Boston Bombing?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president wanting to kill Americans with drones in our own country without the benefit of the law?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “You mean the president arming the Muslim Brotherhood?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The DOJ spying on the press?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s ordering the release of nearly 10,000 illegal immigrants from jails and prisons and falsely blaming the seqester?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s threat to impose gun control by Executive Order in order to bypass Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s repeated violation of the law requiring him to submit a budget no later than the first Monday in February?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The president’s unconstitutional recess appointments in an attempt to circumvent the Senate’s advise-and-consent role?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The State Department interfering with an Inspector General investigation on departmental sexual misconduct?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “HHS employees being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper and Holder all lying to Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “I give up! … Oh wait, I think I got it! You mean that 65 million low-information voters stuck us again with the most corrupt administration in American history?”
Bob: “THAT’S THE ONE!”
Share