Opinion: ‘Individuals must be held accountable’

In fact, this question can be extended to educational, insurance and financial institutions. I believe, because many of us would agree that the good of society is not high on the agenda for the financial and insurance companies, we should dig deeper into the motivations that drive these institutions and their increasing capabilities in creating an environment that further increases their potential to act without oversight and accountability.

The actions of all institutions come down to people, individuals who carry out the agenda of the institutions they represent. If these people are high enough within the hierarchy, they not only carry out the agenda, but set it. Furthermore, these individuals are not necessarily uni-directed. They may have several roles presenting the face that is most advantageous to them.

For example, a former general might be used as a consultant on TV to give an unbiased account of the reasons for being in a war. He can speak with authority because he has access to the latest information given to him by the Pentagon. The Pentagon will only give him that access as long as he tows the line as to how he represents the war. So he parrots the party line with an air of truthfulness. If he did not, he would not be the chosen spokesman.

In the meantime, his prestige as a knowledgeable spokesman makes him an important source of information for congressional committees who want to determine the best dispersal of funds for military equipment. He might propose non-bidding for purposes of efficiency and make recommendations on the companies that could best fulfill those orders. Unbeknownst to at least some of the committee members is the fact that he wears another hat — a consultant to the company he made a recommendation for and a major stockholder in that company. He wears several hats: a former general, an unbiased analyzer of the war, an expert on resource allocation and a consultant to a defense contractor.

Obviously, he would not wear the hat of consultant to the defense contractor when he’s before the committee. Here the expert on military appropriations fits most comfortably and effectively. Presenting himself in such a manner will comfort those who do not know the other roles he plays and will also comfort those on the committee. Other congressmen work in collusion with him partly because the unraveling of one individual can lead to the unraveling of many.

This would happen because public knowledge of this duplicitous behavior would have negative impact on all those involved in the cover up. In the process, our system is further corrupted and skewed to benefit those who are co-opting the levers of power. For privatized networking to be successful, secrecy is essential. The complete backgrounds of the participants in the game of influence must be as opaque as possible. If outright deniability doesn’t work, then accountability must be compromised as much as possible.

The above is not a far-fetched example of what occurs in many of our institutions. My guess is that few of the best lobbyists in the country have solely that job. They are in positions of influence that with a little creativity can not only further enhance their influence, but their pocketbook as well. But best to be “opaque” and under the radar to have all the more influence.

Now I’m a dentist and certainly no social commentator. What I get is from reading a lot, but it is all secondary. Closer to home, I am aware of some aspects of the endodontic education that are provided to the student body. It is common knowledge rotary NiTi education is provided by many dental schools. Furthermore, the system taught is generally from the company that gives the largest grant to the school. The adoption of a particular system was either an individual or group decision from the school. The companies merely make an offer; it is the school that accepts or declines the offer. The motivations of those making the decisions can be straightforward or circuitous.

For example, the chairman of an endodontic department who has the authority to make a decision of this nature might simply believe the grant money coming in is worth the price of the company dictating what will be taught. It will fund other research and possibly even support some scholarships for those who cannot fully afford the tuition. These are worthwhile goals, but make no mistake they have been purchased at the expense of academic freedom. The last people to know that what they are being taught has been determined by factors other than academic analysis are the students. They are the unwitting pawns that are used as bait to encourage companies to offer grant money as a way to get their products into the hands of the students — possible future purchasers of the products.

This state of affairs might not be so bad if the students were told why they were being taught a particular technique, but, of course, that would be counterproductive to the company giving the grant. After all, why give grant money if the students upon graduation, knowing there were no better grounds for learning this system other than grant money, now look at other systems? For these reasons, the transaction between school and manufacturer are kept secret. From a moral point of view, it is easy to determine the appropriateness of the schools’ actions. Simply see how they would react if the transaction were on full display or their defensive reaction that would ensue if the transactions were discovered.

Now the individual or individuals who made the decision to teach a particular system are open to other temptations. Perhaps they will become speakers supporting the systems they teach in their school. After all, a chairman of a department is prestigious and the companies like to have prestigious individuals advocating their products. With lectures and, perhaps, articles come honorariums, free travel and hotel expenses, free goods and the chance to become even better known as an endodontic spokesman.

If one is particularly successful, one can become a consultant for the company, or perhaps even be appointed to the board of directors with significant yearly salaries attached to these positions. As a well-known and effective spokesman for one company, the chances of being recruited by other companies increases substantially. If a person in a position of influence plays his cards right, that influence — and the wealth that accompanies that influence — can be increased dramatically.

You start running in the circles that include other influential people, and networking at a higher level becomes a reality. In short, more opportunities are there. My guess is very few of the opportunities for self-aggrandizement will help society as a whole. The brightest among us have learned the way the game is played. Network for no cause greater than your own. Of course, create the perception that what you do advances society. Couch it in terms of caring for others. However, if it doesn’t come from within, it is strictly strategy and tactics from a hollow source.

When the quest for profit causes harm, it should be outlawed. We have laws against drunk driving and ignloring red lights. You can’t drive up a street in the wrong direction. You can’t park on busy intersections. If we do any of the above, we mess things up for everyone else and because everyone recognizes this simple state of affairs, we have laws that prohibit them.

When banks created unstable vehicles to increase their leverage and then went south, we had to bail them out. Society was harmed. These vehicles should be eliminated or controlled by independent agencies that are manned by people who understand they must be held accountable if they give destructive financial innovations a pass.

Health insurance companies are making record profits and are charging ever higher group rates, stifling many businesses and hurting untold millions. By what right are they in a position of power to dictate to both the physician and the patient the type of care and the cost of that care?

Common sense tells us the elimination of highly paid middlemen by a not-for-profit middleman could alleviate sky-rocketing medical costs that deprive those in need of treatment access to that care. For sure, we are not seeing an alleviation of the problems confronting us with the present system.

You can be sure that situations like this arise over time, a confluence of power with those having a very narrow agenda for personal profit becoming dominant. The excessive rewards for the few trump the reasonable needs of the many, a state of affairs that is consistent with what we have been seeing throughout our society. In the same way that Herbert Hoover was unable to address the coming depression of the 1930s, today we have those members of Congress who accentuate the need for a government-free solution even as the power of corporate influence becomes more and more dominant and the economy deteriorates further.

Perhaps things will have to get a lot worse before the social fabric is so torn that those few at all levels of influence start to fear for the country they brought to this state of affairs. I hope that is not the case.