Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
The Washington Post isn't official enough?Destructionator XIII wrote:Is there a link to this from a more official source? For all we know, the link from the Washington Post blog has been doctored.
Most likely all the copies of Microsoft Word in Ms Fowler's office are programmed to show her as the author on any documents written in that office.Stark wrote:How likely is it that someone in that position woudl actually make it anyway? Surely it'd be made by marketing and pdf'd by admin staff on her orders. It seems more likely it was just edited in (which is hardly impossible given that metadata doesn't really mean anything).
Why would that be the case? Is that standard procedure? It would seem to me to be obviously unwise both functionally (because configuration control and identity of ownership become impossible) as well as politically (one can't get any distance from whatever products are disseminated). The legislation will bear the Senator's name anyway.
Most likely all the copies of Microsoft Word in Ms Fowler's office are programmed to show her as the author on any documents written in that office.
If anyone thought that that it was a past affiliation it wouldn't be so big a deal, but Ms Fowler left Wellpoint for the sole purpose of writing this bill. Politico:Axis Kast wrote:If she's a former executives, what's the big fuss? A conflict of interest arising from pass affiliation?
The Backroom Operator: Liz Fowler
If you drew an organizational chart of major players in the Senate health care negotiations, Fowler would be the chief operating officer.
As a senior aide to Baucus, she directs the Finance Committee health care staff, enforces deadlines on drafting bill language and coordinates with the White House and other lawmakers. She also troubleshoots, identifying policy and political problems before they ripen.
She first worked for Baucus from 2001 through 2005, playing a key role in negotiating the Medicare Part D prescription drug program. Feeling burned out, she left for the private sector but rejoined Baucus in 2008, sensing that a Democratic-controlled Congress would make progress on overhauling the health care system.
Baucus and Fowler spent a year putting the senator in a position to pursue reform, including holding hearings last summer and issuing a white paper in November. They deliberately avoided releasing legislation in order to send a signal of openness and avoid early attacks.
“People know when Liz is speaking, she is speaking for Baucus,” said Dean Rosen, the health policy adviser to former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).
That's a completely accurate desciption of the bill.Coming at it from the other side, couldn't one say that this would be an individual with strong credentials for the post? (I haven't.) Have you read the Baucus bill? Is it a clear, and injurious, sop to corporate interests? Shouldn't that be the litmus test, if any?
Yes, it's standard for all aides, assistants and secretaries to have their copies of Word programed to show their bosses as the author in any corporate office. It's just like company letterhead.Why would that be the case? Is that standard procedure? It would seem to me to be obviously unwise both functionally (because configuration control and identity of ownership become impossible) as well as politically (one can't get any distance from whatever products are disseminated). The legislation will bear the Senator's name anyway.Most likely all the copies of Microsoft Word in Ms Fowler's office are programmed to show her as the author on any documents written in that office.
lolDestructionator XIII wrote:No. If the link was a direct one to his office, then there'd be something to it, but as it is, this is hearsay.Dominus Atheos wrote:The Washington Post isn't official enough?
lolAnyway, I realize that you surf the internet with Lynx or something, but you can still use Google.
hey guys lets make barely supported claims then expect the skeptics to provide my evidence for me
If you have questions, do your own damn research. If you can find a copy that shows "Max Baucus" or some staffer as the author then we'll discuss it. If you refuse to find your own evidence then shut the fuck up and get out of the thread.This still leaves plenty of reasonable doubt about it coming out of the Senator's office.That copy also shows it being authored by Liz Fowler in Microsoft Word 2007.
Suppose this scenario: the senator writes the bill and distributes it in some other format, maybe even on plain paper.
Ms Fowler's firm takes it, does a conversion to pdf so it is neatly packaged for outsiders and sells it to the media. The pdf gets her name on it simply because a computer she owns did the format conversion.
If the pdf came directly from the senator's office; his own .gov website or something like that, you'd have a stronger story. But as it sits, there's no solid proof that a third party conversion and marketing effort, like outlined above, isn't all that happened.
Things may have changed since I worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield (of which WellPoint is a part) but back in the day no, that would not have occurred. Computers are assigned to individuals, and that person would be the one whose name would appear as document author for any document generated on that computer's software. In other words, if one of Ms. Fowler's admins typed this in for her, or someone else in her office wrote it, that person's name would appear as author in the metadata. So, most likely, Ms. Fowler is indeed the original author, though that would not bar contributions from marketing or editing by others. I suppose there are ways around that, or it could have been deliberately changed to reflect her as author, but I find it unlikely given what I know of how that family of companies operates.Dominus Atheos wrote:Most likely all the copies of Microsoft Word in Ms Fowler's office are programmed to show her as the author on any documents written in that office.Stark wrote:How likely is it that someone in that position woudl actually make it anyway? Surely it'd be made by marketing and pdf'd by admin staff on her orders. It seems more likely it was just edited in (which is hardly impossible given that metadata doesn't really mean anything).
Actually... that has NOT been my experience. Most of the corporate offices I've worked for did not have the software programmed to show the boss as author on assistant and secretary generated documents. It does not surprise me that there would be exceptions, but it's by no means a universal.Yes, it's standard for all aides, assistants and secretaries to have their copies of Word programed to show their bosses as the author in any corporate office. It's just like company letterhead.
No disagreement from me. I was just trying to clarify the point because it seemed like there wasn't an understanding of her current position, what with the questioning of the veracity of DA's source earlier. I think this shit is downright despicable and I hope Baucus roasts in a special kind of hell for being such a slimy fuck.Broomstick wrote:Well, hell, back when Hillarycare was causing a ruckus I was employed by Blue Cross and there most certainly WAS a plan to, essentially, subvert the reform process back then (of course, the process was clothed in much more polite terms). I know there are contingency plans the industry plans to use should the country convert to single-payer. Why should anyone be surprised that health insurers have their fingers in the pie, now?
Sure, she's a former exec of WellPoint. Now she's a top aide of Bacus. Do you think her current job would, in any way, bar her from a return to executive-level status at WellPoint in the future? It is quite common for people to move in and out of high level positions like that.
Are you allowed to talk about that? I'm guessing not, but it sounds like juicy reading.Broomstick wrote:Well, hell, back when Hillarycare was causing a ruckus I was employed by Blue Cross and there most certainly WAS a plan to, essentially, subvert the reform process back then (of course, the process was clothed in much more polite terms). I know there are contingency plans the industry plans to use should the country convert to single-payer. Why should anyone be surprised that health insurers have their fingers in the pie, now?
I'd be interested to here about those as well. I'm guessing they'd probably try to move into supplemental insurance markets, and then squeeze the government to buy them out in a conversion to single-payer, among other things.Scottish Ninja wrote:Are you allowed to talk about that? I'm guessing not, but it sounds like juicy reading.Broomstick wrote:Well, hell, back when Hillarycare was causing a ruckus I was employed by Blue Cross and there most certainly WAS a plan to, essentially, subvert the reform process back then (of course, the process was clothed in much more polite terms). I know there are contingency plans the industry plans to use should the country convert to single-payer. Why should anyone be surprised that health insurers have their fingers in the pie, now?
Not really. While I did work for both VP's and CEO's in the Blue Cross system I was certainly not privy to all details of such plans, I certainly can't produce any documentation, and there was that agreement I signed in exchange for a significant severance package upon my departure.Scottish Ninja wrote:Are you allowed to talk about that? I'm guessing not, but it sounds like juicy reading.Broomstick wrote:Well, hell, back when Hillarycare was causing a ruckus I was employed by Blue Cross and there most certainly WAS a plan to, essentially, subvert the reform process back then (of course, the process was clothed in much more polite terms). I know there are contingency plans the industry plans to use should the country convert to single-payer. Why should anyone be surprised that health insurers have their fingers in the pie, now?
Oh, yes - that is definitely a feature of some of their contingency plans. Blue Cross already operates in supplemental insurance such as "medigap" (supplemental to Medicare) and in countries that already have UHC such as Canada, France, Great Britain, and others.Guardsman Bass wrote:I'd be interested to here about those as well. I'm guessing they'd probably try to move into supplemental insurance markets, and then squeeze the government to buy them out in a conversion to single-payer, among other things.
Indeed, they manage the coverage for Veteran's Affairs Canada, even have their little logo on my benefits card. And I suspect that they will snap up the new contract for the PSHCP as well this year.Broomstick wrote: Oh, yes - that is definitely a feature of some of their contingency plans. Blue Cross already operates in supplemental insurance such as "medigap" (supplemental to Medicare) and in countries that already have UHC such as Canada, France, Great Britain, and others.
The information about Blue Cross's role in managing several public health care administration systems is interesting. It's actually not a bad idea, per se - you'd be basically co-opting an already massive insurance company and then turning it into essentially a utility on the national level, instead of having to set-up an entirely new administrative infrastructure from top to bottom.Broomstick wrote:Not really. While I did work for both VP's and CEO's in the Blue Cross system I was certainly not privy to all details of such plans, I certainly can't produce any documentation, and there was that agreement I signed in exchange for a significant severance package upon my departure.Scottish Ninja wrote:Are you allowed to talk about that? I'm guessing not, but it sounds like juicy reading.Broomstick wrote:Well, hell, back when Hillarycare was causing a ruckus I was employed by Blue Cross and there most certainly WAS a plan to, essentially, subvert the reform process back then (of course, the process was clothed in much more polite terms). I know there are contingency plans the industry plans to use should the country convert to single-payer. Why should anyone be surprised that health insurers have their fingers in the pie, now?
I do know that, should the country go to single payer Blue Cross will attempt to step in as the administrator of the whole shebang - why not? They're already the administrator for Medicare, and used to be for TriCare until someone fucked up the reapplication process (and it really was a stupid error that lost them that contract). They already, collectively, cover 100 million "lives" - more than any other health insurer in the world, and more than the population of most countries. Certainly, such a change would severely reduce profits in the system, but Blue Cross has every intention of surviving such a change, if it ever occurs. A significant portion of Blue Cross is run as a not-for-profit anyway, and those areas typically run at a 3-5% overhead cost, as opposed to 10-20% or more at entirely for-profit health insurers. The Blue Cross system could adjust to reduced income much easier than some of its competitors.
Right. It would be somewhat analogous to the US Postal system, but originating from a private company rather than from a public service.Guardsman Bass wrote:The information about Blue Cross's role in managing several public health care administration systems is interesting. It's actually not a bad idea, per se - you'd be basically co-opting an already massive insurance company and then turning it into essentially a utility on the national level, instead of having to set-up an entirely new administrative infrastructure from top to bottom.
Won't work - everyone in the industry knows Blue Cross is in a superior position to become the administrator. You might get Blue Cross vs. Everyone Else, but no other company has such a huge network or such experience with working with government contracts (to the best of my knowledge - I'm not infallible here)That'd also make for an interesting political strategy if the country ever went single-payer - in order to weaken resistance from the insurance companies, you could play them off against each other over who gets to be the monopoly on coverage at the end of the day.
Rogue 9 wrote:Wow.
If that means what it looks like on it's face, this whole deal is totally corrupt. I wonder how the fuck he's going to explain this one.
It's amazing how incredibly weak cultural antipathy for conflict of interest is. Frankly, Baucus should be forced to explain any close working relationship with such people at all, regardless of whether they are actually personally writing documents for him.Axis Kast wrote:If she's a former executives, what's the big fuss? A conflict of interest arising from pass affiliation?
Coming at it from the other side, couldn't one say that this would be an individual with strong credentials for the post? (I haven't.) Have you read the Baucus bill? Is it a clear, and injurious, sop to corporate interests? Shouldn't that be the litmus test, if any?
