Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:06 PM
kentuck (74,636 posts)
Are you familiar with Equifax and Serco and what they do for our government?
In other words, what they do for us, the taxpayers?
Both are connected to the new health exchanges in the new Obamacare.
An article from the NY Times:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has hired a credit reporting agency to help verify the incomes of people who apply for federal subsidies to buy insurance under the new health care law.
The company, Equifax Workforce Solutions, a unit of Equifax Inc., will provide information that is more current than what is available on federal income tax returns.
The use of a commercial information vendor comes as Congressional Republicans are expressing concern about the administration’s ability to verify data in subsidy applications. Subsidies, in the form of tax credits, will be available to millions of low- and moderate-income people who are not eligible for Medicaid and have not been offered affordable coverage by employers.
Federal officials moved Tuesday to tamp down concern about another company playing a major role in President Obama’s health care overhaul. The company, Serco, will help officials sift applications for health insurance and tax credits under the health care law.
5 replies, 1006 views
Are you familiar with Equifax and Serco and what they do for our government? (Original post)
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:08 PM
KamaAina (65,609 posts)
1. Much so-called "government waste" really comes from these parasitic corporations.
Another prime example is Maximus, which basically runs Social Security.
edit; And don't even get me started on Halliburton, Blackwater/Xe, etc.
Response to KamaAina (Reply #1)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:54 PM
JDPriestly (51,650 posts)
The Civil Service Reform Act is an 1883 federal law that abolished the United States Civil Service Commission. It eventually placed most federal employees on the merit system and marked the end of the so-called "spoils system." Drafted during the Chester A. Arthur administration, the Pendleton Act served as a response to President James Garfield's assassination by a disappointed office seeker. The Act was passed into law in January 1883; it was sponsored by Democratic Senator George H. Pendleton of Ohio. It was drafted by Dorman Bridgeman Eaton, a leading reformer who became the first chairman of the United States Civil Service Commission. The most famous commissioner was Theodore Roosevelt (1889–95). The new law prohibited mandatory campaign contributions, or "assessments," which amounted to 50-75% of party financing in the Gilded Age. Second, the Pendleton Act required entrance exams for aspiring bureaucrats. At first it covered very few jobs but there was a ratchet provision whereby outgoing presidents could lock in their own appointees by converting their jobs to civil service. Political reformers, typified by the Mugwumps demanded an end to the spoils system. After a series of party reversals at the presidential level (1884, 1888, 1892, 1896), the result was that most federal jobs were under civil service. One result was more expertise and less politics. An unintended result was the shift of the parties to reliance on funding from business, since they could no longer depend on patronage hopefuls. Mark Hanna found a substitute revenue stream in 1896, by assessing corporations.
The 1883 law only applied to federal jobs: not to the state and local jobs that were the main basis for political machines. Ethical degeneration was halted by reform in civil service and municipal reform in the Progressive Era, which led to structural changes in administrative departments and changes in the way the government managed public affairs. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act codified standards of government ethics for the executive branch. In 1989, the act was expanded in its applicability to the legislative and judicial branches. Throughout the American ethics reform movement, one of the most important themes has been the prevention of conflicts of interest.
The civil service was formed to fight corruption and the awarding of jobs as political favors. We need to review what is going on with these private corporations.
Private contractors have more flexibility in paying employees high wages for their expertise. That is the problem with the civil service. Their employment is relatively secure, but those with PhDs, etc. can often get much higher pay in the private sector.
We have to make a decision. Will we pay experts in their fields, people with special ability more when they work directly for the government and perhaps offer less job security? Or will we continue the sham of hiring them as "private contractors," pay them more and hire them on an at-will basis? It's a big trade-off.
But you can't get a person with Snowden's ability for GSA wages. That's my guess. Am I wrong?
Response to forestpath (Reply #2)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:21 PM
kentuck (74,636 posts)
3. In the same article:
The American unit of the Serco Group won a contract worth as much as $1.2 billion on June 27 to provide “eligibility support services” to health insurance exchanges around the country.
On July 11, the British government announced that it was reviewing all contracts with Serco, one of its biggest and most important suppliers, after auditors found that the company had overcharged taxpayers for the electronic monitoring of prisoners who had been released. The justice secretary, Chris Grayling, told Parliament that the overcharging had begun at least eight years ago.
Brian T. Cook, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which awarded the federal contract, expressed confidence in the company. Operations of Serco’s American subsidiary are separate from those of the parent company, based in Britain, administration officials said.
Alan Hill, a spokesman for Serco’s American unit, in Reston, Va., said, “There is no reason that this issue will have any impact on the capabilities or operations of Serco’s U.S. business.”
Response to kentuck (Original post)
Wed Jul 17, 2013, 04:36 PM
NoOneMan (4,795 posts)
4. Now if you had single-payer, you wouldn't need these assholes
You just file and pay your fair share of taxes at the end of the year. You don't have premiums to cripple you. You don't have co-pays that keep you from getting care. You don't have subsidies based on a report by a parasitic private corporation. You just have a single-payer that handles this for you.