Costs of Privatization?

[GGT]

....All things, including fire-fighting, come down to cost-benefit at some point....

Now, as long as the general fire fighting is adequate, I don't see anything wrong with buying better fire services, or health insurance, for yourself. Why not? ....

Flixy, have you read about the current Colorado wildfires? Around 100,000 acres have burned, thousands of people evacuated, many homes burnt to the ground. Of course local firefighting was inadequate, even state assistance wasn't enough. They had to call upon Federal funds and labor, calling up national forestry firefighters, National Guard, federal planes with retardants.

And the dirty little secret now coming forth.....is that those national forestry firefighters have no health insurance. Ain't that a kick in Smokey the Bear's butt? Those people are paid less than $50,000/year, to put their lives on the line fighting forest fires, but have no employer-subsidized health coverage. Some might belong to a union and get preferred group rates, but they still have to buy their own healthcare. They're "covered" by workmen's compensation, but only if they're injured "on the job". Months or years down the road, when they show up at the ER in distress (from lung diseases), or need to apply for Disability (from burns or other injuries).......they're on their own.

Go America.




edit to add link
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...l-firefighter/

[Veldan Rath]

Veldan, I'm not ignoring your point. I just don't agree.

Really? Where is the flaw in my logic? Who is more likely to be bribed/corrupted by a major contractor or supply merchant? Run of the mill boob walking down the street who is a waiter at Applebee's or a US Congressman that sits on committee relevant to either the two above?

[GGT]

Really? Where is the flaw in my logic? Who is more likely to be bribed/corrupted by a major contractor or supply merchant? Run of the mill boob walking down the street who is a waiter at Applebee's or a US Congressman that sits on committee relevant to either the two above?

While money is part of it, it's not the totality.

It's power.

When you give these igits incredible power over other people THAT is why they are corruptible, and THEN money comes into play.

Because legislators, by design and purpose, have the power to make laws. Since we're a nation of laws, taking away that 'incredible power' of legislating would mean changing our constitution(s) and/or the balance between governmental branches. I don't see a problem with legislators having power to make laws....but it becomes a conflict of interest (and risks corruption) when money is how they get elected in the first place.

[GGT]

An even more dangerous and insidious "cost" of privatization: private probation companies.

A decade or two ago, many states abandoned pursuing misdemeanor fees because it was time-consuming and costly. Companies like Judicial Correction Services saw an opportunity. They charge public authorities nothing and make their money by adding fees onto the bills of the defendants.

Stephen B. Bright, president of theSouthern Center for Human Rights, who teaches at Yale Law School, said courts were increasingly using fees “for such things as the retirement funds for various court officials, law enforcement functions such as police training and crime laboratories, victim assistance programs and even the court’s computer system. In one county in Pennsylvania, 26 different fees totaling $2,500 are assessed in addition to the fine.”

Mr. Bright, of the Southern Center for Human Rights, complained that with the private companies seeking a profit, courts in need of income and the most vulnerable caught up in the system, “we end up balancing the budget on the backs of the poorest people in society.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/us...nted=1&_r=1&hp

[Veldan Rath]

Because legislators, by design and purpose, have the power to make laws. Since we're a nation of laws, taking away that 'incredible power' of legislating would mean changing our constitution(s) and/or the balance between governmental branches. I don't see a problem with legislators having power to make laws....but it becomes a conflict of interest (and risks corruption) when money is how they get elected in the first place.

Yes they have the power to make laws, but as they have intruded and expanded so much thus it is worth it to attempt to corrupt them.

[GGT]

Yes they have the power to make laws, but as they have intruded and expanded so much thus it is worth it to attempt to corrupt them.

And the way I see it....laws became "intrusions or expansions" whenever special interest money could grease the wheels. Being a "representative" of The People morphed into "representing monied interests". Whether in smoked-filled back rooms, exchanging favors for pet projects, slush funds, soft money....or openly pushing for industry subsidies and policies that favor one state or one industry (Iowa corn, Texas oil). It's been that way since forever, and you're on record acknowledging as much when it came to Union money/influence on policy, right?

But it's gotten much worse the last couple of decades, despite all sorts of rules on transparency, bundling, caps, efforts on campaign finance reform. The amount of money being thrown into "elections" has become outrageous. Since wealth (and its power) has been more concentrated at the top, and in a few sectors of our economy --- banking/finance, healthcare, energy, military, government --- that's what's being "represented" now, entities.

[Aimless]

I guess VR does have a point: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/313...north-carolina

[GGT]

I guess VR does have a point:

Does he?

"The controversy highlights the often ineffectual implementation of technology in government, and is an example of the direct effect it can have on the country. With irreversible systems such as this actively obstructing the course of democracy, it's a wonder we don't still vote with a show of hands."

From what I've read, "most" voters want updated and comprehensive technology for ALL voting. Particularly at the individual citizen level, but also at state legislature level. Instead of a mish-mash of 50 states with their own ballot platforms....hanging chads or pregnant chads on paper ballots (remember Florida?). The same is true for legislating by silly green and red buttons (that don't have any error prompt or default mechanism) or using verbal Aye/Nay votes in state legislatures (remember Wisconsin?) But first, they'd have to vote on modernizing and coordinating voting techniques, using antiquated voting techniques. And most of them would first argue about how much money it would cost.

[Aimless]

I just wanted an excuse and a place to post the link :P

[Flixy]

I guess VR does have a point: http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/4/313...north-carolina

Heh, over here the senate is elected by the provincial legislators, and I think last time one of the rookie legislators accidentally voted for the wrong guy and it cost them a seat in the Senate. She must have been popular with her party after that

[Veldan Rath]

We used to have that system too...then the idiocy of the 17th amendment took place

[Flixy]

We used to have that system too...then the idiocy of the 17th amendment took place

I'd like to add that our senate is very, very different from yours.

[Veldan Rath]

Ah, well I was loosely aligning your provincial legits to our state legits...