Maximus Inc. Does Maximus Child Support Have a Monopoly on Child Support Collections? Internet

28th of Sep, 2011 by User662663

I have been researching as much as I can about Maximus, and the more research I do, the angrier I become at the entire system. My research brought me to this Letter from the CEO of Maximus. Within the first two sentences of this letter, Mr. Montoni clearly states that Maximus is a FOR- PROFIT PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY, and makes sure to note their NYSE ticker call letters MMS. Since this information was listed first and foremost, before anything else, I can only now assume that their profits and stocks are more important than any other job they may have on their plate. This letter also discusses how their operations have â€œgrown considerablyâ€ outside the U.S. and impresses the fact that they have grown to a very large company that has very large profits. You cannot tell me that a company operating at this level of growth and running operations worldwide, could give a ratâ€™s a** about collecting child support on a local government level. I am now wondering if Maximus Child Support could not be considered a monopoly. The politicians, who keep giving Maximus these contracts, are equally at fault for wanting to take the heat off of themselves for poor performance within child support collections. I began researching monopolies and bidding for government contracts. Wikipedia defines a monopoly as an economic term that â€œexists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it Upon reading this definition, it was clear to me that Maximus was indeed taking on the form of a monopoly within the child support enforcement and collection system. I then began to think about the article I read that stated Hamilton County, Tn voluntarily gave up its child support contract to Maximus. This made the wheels start turning in my head and I began to wonder if this was not a case of â€œbid riggingâ€. Bid rigging is defined by Wikipedia as â€œa form of fraud in which a commercial contract is promised to one party even though for the sake of appearance several other parties also present a bid.â€ There are 4 types of bid rigging; however, the one that this particular case falls under seems to be a type of bid rigging called â€œbid suppressionâ€. According to Wikipedia, bid suppression â€œoccurs where some of the conspirators agree not to submit a bid so that another conspirator can successfully win the contract.â€

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment