April 17, 2013

NYT article on How Big "Non Profit Hospitals" Refuse to Disclose

Let's say you garnered a Masters in Business from a name university. For a while you cool your heels while occupying a VP position for a large insurance company. One day, you realize you are in a position to handle some exciting career building "quid pro quo" - you let the local hospital people know that you will see to it that there is a contract that will go into effect, locking your insurance company and its employees into the local hospital for the employees' health needs.

Not surprisingly, just six months later, you are asked to become a member of the board of directors of that hospital. Such is your reward for your MBA, for your utilizing your position at an insurance company to its best advantage, etc.

Now you have some power. You can see to it that you utilize your position at this hospital to help the other board members strip away the community control aspects of that hospital. Other exciting projects come up -as America enters the era of digital hospital records, you can help persuade the community that some $ 300K needs to be assessed to the local community for the purpose of having some software engineers be paid to develop the software. Never mind that by now the hospital is part of a franchise such as Sutter Hospital, and that the money will be able to be pocketed by someone (maybe yourself and the other board members?) as the franchise itself already has the software and no one anywhere needs to develop it!

Such are the concerns us mere mortals need to have with regards to the "non profit hospitals" in our midst. recently an article in the New York Times points out other aspects of Big Hospitals that might need to have some oversight.

Here is the link to the NYT article:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/the-governance-of-nonprofit-hospitals/

Author: UWE E. REINHARDT


Uwe E. Reinhardt is an economics professor at Princeton. He has some financial interests in the health care field.

From the article:

For the most part, however, these boards are self-perpetuating; the board members elect successors whenever there are vacancies. Belying their label, nonprofit entities can, in fact, be heavily profit-oriented and can earn sizable profits, which they delicately call “revenues in excess of expenses” or “available for future services.” Unlike profit-making entities, they cannot distribute these profits to any owners. Instead, they plow them back into investments in plant and equipment
or add them to endowments. (My comment - how very profitable for any board member whose relative(s) happen to be brokers of financial commodities!)

By law, nonprofit entities must submit fairly detailed financial reports to the Internal
Revenue Service on a Form 990, which has been refined as part of the Affordable Care Act.

Form 990 offers considerable detail on a nonprofit’s finances and operations, although nowhere near as much detail as is routinely reported to the S.E.C. by profit-making entities.

But try to find Form 990 on the Web site of most nonprofits. I can predict with almost certainty that you will not find it there.

More at the above link.

April 12, 2013

Meanwhile, the Drug wars and the Harm they do continue

Well, the Drug War is ongoing -


From the following link -
http://ladybud.com/her-name-was-rachel-hoffman/

This young woman was investigated by Florida police when they discovered her driving while under the inlfuence of marijuana. When they raided her aprtment, they found several Ecstasy pills and more marijuana.

In order for her to get the cops to drop serous charges against her, she agreed to wear a wire, purchase a gun, and go off and try to score some $ 13,000 worth of narcotics with money the police gave her. Then she disappeared.

What happened to her?
From the link -
"when they discovered she was wearing a wire, these grifters executed her under a canopy of woods and Spanish moss with the same gun she was supposed to buy from them. But arguably, the police who had been using her as an informant are just as, if not more, guilty of her murder.

In a statement to the Tampa Tribune shortly after her death and prior to her funeral, her stepfather said:

“The reality is, untrained civilians of any age should not be put in that position by a police force, and they put a 23-year-old relatively naïve person in a life-threatening situation”.

On May 7, please remember Rachel Hoffman. Do not ever, ever forget her and the thousands of countless others who are killed in the line of duties they ought never have participated. Each year, there should to be vigils for her and countless others who were put into these impossible situations and lost their lives.
####
I wrote about crap like this happening circa 2000, Under the President Bill Clinton.

Some six years ago, Clinton was being interviewed by a young San Francisco Reproter, and he said to her, "Gee if only someone would stop the total nonsense that is the drug war."

I very much liked the fact that this reporter included his remark in her interview, with her notation - "Uh was this man not the President of the USA for eight years? Maybe he could have stopped this nonsense."

Anyway, quite recently the Congressional Research Service came up with some talking points for Obama, regarding the move by many of the states to legalize marijuana.

The Congressional Research Service, which not surprisingly provides research for members of Congress, has put together an extremely comprehensive analysis of possible responses from the federal government and the legal issues surrounding them. It is a long but worthwhile read if you want get into the weeds on the issue.

In summary, while marijuana is legal under state law it is still illegal under the Federal Controlled Substances Act. The federal government could decide to mostly leave the states alone, but if Obama wants to interfere the report looks at the three main tools at his disposal.

1. Federal Prosecution – The federal government can arrest people in these states for violating federal anti-marijuana laws. Going after regular smokers, while theoretically possible, would not be practical because it would require a massive new federal expenditure. The report points out 99% of drug offenses are dealt with under state law.

The federal government could go after the newly authorized commercial businesses to dissuade anyone from taking part. Or as they do with medical marijuana, only go after ones that violate some vague criteria.

2. Forfeiture – The CSA allows for the government to take property involved in drug crimes. Civil forfeiture doesn’t require criminal charges against the owner, just proof the property was involved in criminal activity. From the report: “Forfeiture proceedings are generally less resource intensive than a criminal prosecution and have been used in the past against medical marijuana dispensaries. In practice, the DOJ would be able to seize and liquidate property, both real and personal, associated with marijuana production distribution and retail sale facilities operating in Colorado and Washington without bringing any criminal action.”

This could be used in addition to prosecution or instead of it. If used aggressively this would make it nearly impossible for anyone to run a legal marijuana business in these states.

3. Preempt Lawsuit – The government could file a lawsuit in federal court claiming the new legalization laws are preempted by federal law. This is a tricky legal question and there is no guarantee the federal government would win. The personal possession provision in both laws are almost assured to be found Constitutional under the 10th Amendment. The main issue would likely be if the provisions licensing growers and retailers are preempted.

Maybe Mr Clinton could step forward and off up his two cents on the issue once again. It is always sad to realize that our governing officials are so far behind the curve, on everything from Social Security to their continuing nonsensical War on Some Drugs.

April 11, 2013

My 26 second call to the WH - it explains everything.

WH Phone staff person: "Good morning, The White Hosue."

Me: "Hi there - I would really like to speak to any Democrats who are available at this number."

WH Phone Staff Person - "I am not able to offer you any available Democrats at this number."

Me: "That is pretty much what I have suspected, based on decisions made by the main occupant at this number. Thank you for adding your information!"

April 5, 2013

NY Yankees = Baseball's Evil Empire:

Gleaned this off a current news diary off Daily Kos:

With baseball season finally upon us, where does your team's owner rank on the asshole-o-meter?

In early February, a US Patent and Trademark Office court in Washington, DC, confirmed what baseball fans had suspected for more than a century: The New York Yankees are evil.

After an internet startup, Evil Empire Inc., had attempted to trademark the phrase "Baseball's Evil Empire," the Yankees filed an injunction, and the panel of judges agreed. As the court put it, "The record shows that there is only one Evil Empire in baseball and it is the New York Yankees." If only it were true. The ranks of Major League Baseball owners include some of the richest men—and they are almost exclusively white males—in the country, as likely to open their wallets for a super-PAC as they are a top-shelf free agent. Viewed in the context of the competition, with its anti-discrimination settlements and SEC investigations, the Yankees are, like their Opening Day roster, fairly pedestrian.

Now if only the Chicago Cubs weren't so often Big Time losers, I could call it a good week. (And maybe this is the year for the Cubs?)