In Massachusetts, a former case manager for a state welfare program has been indicted on charges that she shook down applicants for assistance. It seems that Valerie Herron told folks that their applications for aid would take a little time unless they paid an "expediting fee" (cash only, of course). Those who paid her got their applications pushed through a wee bit faster; those who declined, got to wait.
The state, of course, has no such fee in place and saw none of the money.
Herron allegedly pulled her little scam for at least five months until anonymous tips led to an investigation -- leading to her indictment almost a year and a half later.
To even think of using this story as an example of just what may happen once the federal government is in charge of everyone's health care, and not just providing food stamps to the indigent, is completely uncalled for and inappropriate and wrong, and any of you who made that utterly inappropriate connection should report yourselves to the nearest re-education camp.



Comments (14)
I wonder how much air time ... (Below threshold)1. Posted by JAT0 | October 28, 2010 8:33 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
I wonder how much air time this is getting - if one person was doing this - why not others in other states/places?
1. Posted by JAT0 | October 28, 2010 8:33 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 08:33
2. Posted by jim m | October 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
I'm shocked. Shocked! Having been given the power to decide who gets medical treatment and when, that government workers would use that power to extract bribes from helpless citizens. Nothing like power over life and death to make you open up your wallet to get these scumbags to do their jobs that you are already paying them to do.
libs complain about private insurance carriers refusing to pay out, what are they going to say when some bureaucrat demands their retirement savings or sexual favors from their children?
2. Posted by jim m | October 28, 2010 8:39 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 08:39
3. Posted by DaveD | October 28, 2010 9:04 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
I would guess this is the liberal concept of entrepreneurship.
3. Posted by DaveD | October 28, 2010 9:04 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 09:04
4. Posted by iwogisdead | October 28, 2010 9:13 AM | Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
If they can get a few bucks for expediting welfare, just think of how much they'll be able to get for expediting medical care for someone having chest pains.
4. Posted by iwogisdead | October 28, 2010 9:13 AM |
Score: 9 (9 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 09:13
5. Posted by dfbaskwill | October 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
The entire $5B of deficit spending under Nancy Pelosi's dutiful watch has been for political slush funds for generations to come. Cutting off the spigot is only the first step. Recouping the monies will be a much harder duty, as those "entitlements" are now seen as a Right under the US Constitution, and no one will give any of it up voluntarily.
5. Posted by dfbaskwill | October 28, 2010 9:31 AM |
Score: 7 (7 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 09:31
6. Posted by alanstorm | October 28, 2010 9:52 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
I would NEVER have thought of government functionaries demanding baksheesh for services they were legally supposed to provide in the first place.
No, really.
6. Posted by alanstorm | October 28, 2010 9:52 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 09:52
7. Posted by epador | October 28, 2010 9:53 AM | Score: -10 (10 votes cast)
Well, this certainly never happens in private commerce, does it?
7. Posted by epador | October 28, 2010 9:53 AM |
Score: -10 (10 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 09:53
8. Posted by GarandFan | October 28, 2010 10:30 AM | Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
"Well, this certainly never happens in private commerce, does it?"
Uh, we're talking GOVERNMENT CONTROL of services. "Private commerce" is commerce OF YOUR OWN CHOICE.
You have no CHOICE under government control.
8. Posted by GarandFan | October 28, 2010 10:30 AM |
Score: 6 (6 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 10:30
9. Posted by jim m | October 28, 2010 11:28 AM | Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
In a free market and employee who did such a thing would be swiftly exposed and destroyed. Customers would flee such a company and find alternatives for the services.
But a government worker, protected by the SEIU, is virtually invulnerable. There will be no repercussions. The union will fight to conceal the identity of the individual and keep his job. With nowhere else to go the public will be forced to choose between paying whatever ransom the corrupt bureaucrat demands or foregoing whatever service is needed.
Since the likelihood of them loosing their job is virtually nil, protection from the union and the bureaucracy and the public having nowhere else to turn, what incentive is there for these government thugs to NOT victimize the public?
9. Posted by jim m | October 28, 2010 11:28 AM |
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 11:28
10. Posted by gaius piconius | October 28, 2010 12:14 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Of course we can only guess her political loyalties, but guessing is not good enough.
Can we get a photogragh of Valerie Herron? That might be very helpfull just knowing her cultural loyalties.
10. Posted by gaius piconius | October 28, 2010 12:14 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 12:14
11. Posted by Maddox | October 28, 2010 12:32 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
This is nothing to worry about, we have Eric Holder's Justice Department upholding truth and The American way.
11. Posted by Maddox | October 28, 2010 12:32 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 12:32
12. Posted by Les Nessman | October 28, 2010 5:17 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"If they can get a few bucks for expediting welfare, just think of how much they'll be able to get for expediting medical care for someone having chest pains."
They may end up getting a few ounces of lead buckshot in their head, if they try it with someone desperate enough.
And it would be justified.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
12. Posted by Les Nessman | October 28, 2010 5:17 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 17:17
13. Posted by Grace | October 28, 2010 10:53 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
jim m @9,
Exactly! The very fact that it took "at least five months until anonymous tips led to an investigation -- leading to her indictment almost a year and a half later" proves your case.
In the private sector, I believe that by the second and certainly the third anonymous tip the investigation would begin in ernest and it certainly wouldn't take a year and a half to fire someone.
Government tends to run way to slow in investigating their own.
13. Posted by Grace | October 28, 2010 10:53 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 28, 2010 22:53
14. Posted by Brian Richard Allen | October 29, 2010 7:23 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Let none of us ever forget that the "Democrats" know no other "career path" than that of lying about sharing whatever may be looted from the rest of us to people too damned stupid, mean-spirited and/or greedy to know they're being lied to and/or to care.
Envy-motivated, hatred-engined and the consequential rage-driven "Democrats" are institutionalized thieves by any other name and know no other way of "making a living."
Every "Democrat" that runs for office runs for a bigger slice, unearned and undeserved, of our pie.
Which is why "Democrats" and those others who suffer the Fascissocialist Psychosis always morbidly deny and pathologically project accordingly. And otherwise engage in politics as if their very lives are on the line.
They are.
We Republicans and the genuine libertarians (as different from those libertines who long ago stole the Libertarian Party) run for office and either win - to serve -- or lose to return to productive lives.
Food for thought.
14. Posted by Brian Richard Allen | October 29, 2010 7:23 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on October 29, 2010 07:23