Curtis at Spin Cycle was nice enough to give us props when we started out. We thank him for that. We have lots of time for Curtis. But to have him lump us in with these poor misguided souls was unsettling. Just because we are on the left (obviously), doesn't mean we are a shill for the government. Unlike the Premier, we prefer to skate on the Left wing - not at Center. Besides, Doer hardly needs our help, wouldn't want it, and wouldn't want to be remotely associated with it! We're too radical for him.
Are we anti-Tory? Sure. But, make no mistake, we don't only throw at the right. In Arsehole 'chute-land' any deserving pol or pundit is fair game. Dung sticks where it belongs! Manitoba's Health Minister and the Premier are no exception (see here). We know we suffer from anal hyperbolitis; but the opposition and media also need to account for their shortcomings. Their recurrent ja' accuse hyperbole is juvenile. The facts please: just the facts.
As for Curtis's analysis of the issue, I find it interesting and insightful. He appears to be saying the government hedges it's bets in how it deals with potential scandals. Fair enough. But by commenting on process rather than context, isn't Curtis doing the same thing (i.e hedging his bets)? Is this issue really worthy? Is it really a 'scandal'?
Bad optics for Doer? Sure. Bad press? ibid. "Scandal"? Hardly.
What we are talking about is standard industry business practice - albeit flawed. And, unfortunately, our Health System is indeed part of an industry so large that today's red flag does little more than distract us from its real problems. Yes, $20M over 8 years is a lot of money. But in perspective, at 1% of the WRHA's annual budget, is this really our biggest problem? Should it be fixed - sure. But, if you want real corruption in health care, take a look at what Siemens has been up to.
The envelopes? Well our guess is they contain "free" supplies, software, support, etc - which we all pay for one way or the other. So, isn't it better it is "free"? Does anyone actually think the bidding mega-corps don't factor in the cost of the "free" stuff into their original bids? Fools.
If the OAG investigation does find that individuals at the WRHA personally profited from the contents of these envelopes: I, Smart Arse, will eat Fat Arse's shorts and post it on YouTube!
In the meantime, we're calling a red herring a red herring. For anyone to seriously think the WRHA tendering process is corrupt is absurd. Only the naive, or politically motivated, would actually try to advance such an argument.
Our health care system has bigger problems. Not the least of which is a Minister of Health who is not up to the job!
And like a red herring, this doesn't pass the smell test.
ReplyDeleteI for one think the WHRA tendering process is corrupt. But hey, after 25 years of bidding on projects, what do I know.
Mr. Nobody
@Mr. Nobody,
ReplyDeleteTo be honest I don't know if the whole tendering process at the WRHA is 'corrupt' or not. Hopefully the OAG investigation will shed light on the matter. But, I think, that SA's point is that to-date there is no evidence that 'individuals' have personally benefited from the idiotic way this retarded behemoth has conducted its bussiness re: bids. Course, I stand to be corrected.
If you or anyone else has hard evidence to the contrary I (for one) would certainly welcome it being aired either here or in some other forum.
That being said, I am shaking my head over the whole affair. Our Health System has so many larger problems that it certainly could do without this type of distraction.
Cheers,
@Nobody:
ReplyDeleteMaybe wrong (and yet common in health care), but that's not necessarily the same as "corrupt." Not even close.
Which is my point: the hyperbole ("corrupt") is entirely disproportionate to the crime.
I'm at pains to explain this to people whose tiny brains cannot seem to get past the phrase "brown envelopes."
Nuance is tricky stuff, I realize that.
BTW: by people with tiny brains, I was referring, of course, to Fat Arse
ReplyDeleteSorry but I must be misreading the article written by Rutherford.
ReplyDeleteWhatever your defense is ,, the fact of the matter is WHRA has been trying to "fix" this awkward tendering process ( possibly before anyone caught on )for the last 2 years.
Further, and I won't belabor , the notion of brown envelopes after a bid has closed is absurd.
This practice is easily subverted and renders any tender invalid.
DO I have proof FA, only circumstantial evidence and some hearsay. Which is as bad as this tendering habit the WHRA has deemed to be Industry standard.
Check out the last major software project at WHRA and see how it evolved. My insiders tell me it was handled by someone who was , prior to being hired by the WHRA, let go by another Winnipeg firm for having been caught taking a "brown envelope".
Now I'm not sure what was in the envelope, but judging by this guys interests it could have been a set of big buttocks ( pun intended ).
All hearsay but , if that is the culture at the WHRA, anything goes if you push the right buttons.
Mr. Nobody
As for the "cash" issue, let me defer to WHRA's expert "asshole" on the policy and what business critics think.
ReplyDelete"We open a brown envelope after and it could be nothing, it could be cash," Kochan said, adding that taking extra benefits from medical suppliers is commonplace in health care.
Accounting and business critics have never heard of such a practice.
DID he say ---"it could be CASH ".; Ya right , this isn't corrupt system. Let me know how many times you want to get hit with a 2x4 across your forehead before you change your mind. After all, you'll see it coming the first time, after that, you may find it acceptable, but you'll be unconscious.