Ok, I know nothing about this but what is in that short article, but based upon that information alone, I can't arrive at a conclusion that this is disgusting, or even slightly wrong.

1. What would the cost be for this work if the feds did it? Less or more than $11 million?

2. Why is it a bad thing for Tommy Thompson's company to be doing the work? Would it be better for the Acme Storm Door Company to do the job?

3. The contract was for $11 million, which we must assume is the total amount paid to the company, not to Thompson. Out of that comes all the employee salaries, costs, overhead, taxes, fees, etc. Why is he being condemned on the basis of the total contract amount without context? See #1 above.

The disgusting points are that:

* the government denied, at first, that there were any significant risks to the 9/11 rescue workers. (Remember EPA Adminstrator Whitman's assertions that everything was just fine?)

* The Adminstration dragged its heels on setting up any sort of funding to assist with health care for these workers.

* When a fund was finally set aside for claims of "clean-up" workers, FEMA argued that claims related to work performed between 9/11 and 9/29 were part of "rescue" work, and thus not eligible for coverage under the "clean-up" funding.

* The GOP-controlled House Appropriations Committee yanked $125 million in direct funding for 9/11 health issues in 2005.

We didn't tell these people the truth about the conditions, we've dragged our heels on helping them, we've revoked funding for helping them, and Thompson was a player in all of this as head of HHS; heck, he sent over 2000 of them into NYC by mobilizing the National Disaster Medical System. (Yes, they were volunteers, but they went on his say-so.)

For him (or his firm) to profit from 9/11 now is disgusting.

So... the bureaucracy screwed up as it always does, so the job was given to a private firm, and that's bad? I don't follow.

i'm with red here... i have no idea why there's outrage
was he the lowest bidder at $11 mil? was there not a bid?

the company is going to get the contract...
per red's #3, may i add travel? equipment? insurance?
$11 million dollars... for 5,000 people...
comes out to $2200 per individual treated Wes...
that really doesn't sound all that far off the mark.

I have a hard time figuring out why folks get so upset, as if former government officials must go home and retire and not participate in the economy. As long as a bidding process was properly followed, I don't see the problem.

And the comment that the administration was slammed for putting services out to contract just illustrates more wrongful outrage. They are acting as if services are being denied when they are to be provided, but under a private contract. I personally would trust the private contractor more than any direct government service.

I think too many folks see conspiracies around every corner. As Red said, the bureaucracy screwed up as it always does.

To carry the conspiracy topic further, it becomes very easy to criticize every government decision after some time passes. The full range of health issues at ground zero were not understood at the time.

20/20 hindsight, and all that.

Anyone who has to make any decisions, as a business person, a government official, or in any capacity, can only make decisions with the information they have at the time. Anyone critiquing the decision later has more information. And they many times convince themselves that the decision-maker "knew all and saw all" and made the decision anyway. And a new conspiracy theory is born.

Add to that a basic distrust of business, of the entire government, or of government officials, and you have a real recipe for demonizing whoever you decide to trump up a case against.

My personality is such that I am probably too forgiving of those who make decisions, but that just helps to average out all those who hyperventilate with outrage.

I'm not making a conspiracy argument. To me, this just illustrates how broken the system has become. We have some limited rules about Congressmen becoming lobbyists, but here's a former Cabinet secretary landing a contract--and I think we all know that his underlings didn't make the pitch here, right?--that was decided by people who used to report to him.

That's just wrong in the general sense. When it's compounded by the fact that this particular area was horribly mismanaged on his watch, my Disgust-o-meter pegs the needle.

Wes, do you know the mechanism for awarding this contract? It may have happened as you say, or it may have been done quite differently.

As for the disgust part, I just can't think that way until I hear something... er... well... disgusting.

The contract was awarded from among four bids; the decision was made by HHS employees.

Eisenhower's 'military-industrial complex' has become a general government-industrial complex. Seeing CEOs migrating to political office (elected or not) and back again, with taxpayer monies bandied about the group, disgusts me.

On what basis was the award made? I don't know; just asking.

So Wes doesn't like CEOs, are we getting to some root cause of his outrage?

Just curious Wes, did a CEO make you angry? Maybe he/she cut you off in traffic? (laugh)

Maybe government appointments should only be given to, what, college professors? (cough)

CEOs as a class are possibly the most qualified to try to administer a large concern such a government agency.

To tie this is to what I wrote above, CEOs have been in situations where decisions had to be made, without the full amount of information that "the complainers" will be using to criticize them later.

Specifically, wasn't Tommy Thompson a four-term governor of Wisconsin? Does he really fit into your "government industrial complex" or "CEOs migrating to political office and back again"?

The CDC contract was awarded after the government received proposals from four different companies, including Thompson's, officials said. The contract went to Logistics Health based on "an evaluation of everything from cost to technical abilities to past performance," CDC spokeswoman Bernadette Burden said.

Now... check this out:

Estimates on how much treatment these workers need — and how much it will cost — vary widely. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg have put the figure at around $400 million a year, but that amount includes treating the much larger group of patients who live in and around New York City.

The pesky facts continue...

According to New York City officials, some 400,000 people were exposed to Ground Zero dust, and 71,000 have enrolled in a long-term health monitoring program for people with and without health problems. Health advocates believe the number of people who have become sickened years after their exposure is in the thousands.

Which of those two is really considered cashing in/taking advantage?
Wait, I think some of that dust floated all the way over here in Iowa!

::cough cough::