Does this sound anything like Florida?

[poppy]

I question that statement. Care to elaborate? I can provide examples of how this is not the case.

Just examine the private contractors in our current wars.

 

[idlewind]

The problem with the war contractors is that government was outsourcing a function that is constitutionally a function of government. The usual problem with government takeovers is that government is attempting to assume functions that are constitutionally private in nature. If we could ever sort out the proper role of government we would be way ahead in our effort to fix this country.

 

[Zebraspots]

If the taxpayers are still paying for it, but a private company is now profiting, I fail to see how savings are attainable if quality and quantity are constants.

In the war example, we pay private contractors far more to do the jobs than we would pay government workers.

 

[Rita]

.
re: article
Indiana Gov Daniels' handing over control of aspects of social services to Affiliated Computer Services seems to be a problem because of not enough competition, appearance of cronyism, quality control problems that likely stemmed from the efficiency and cost-cutting measures put in place to increase the bottom line.

In nursing homes, social services, prisons and the like, there may be aspects of the institutions that could benefit from the efficiencies of privatization but other parts that simply need more quality control because of the affect they have on people's lives.

There should be an adequate number of firms competing for any jobs that are being considered for privatization imo.

.

 

[30ashopper]

If you search around, there are plenty of case studies, a number of which are in other countries. Corruption of public officials is a central problem, but this has nothing to do with the act of privatising, it is a failure of government. Those same corrupt officials would be running the state run system if it were still intact. You just wouldn't know about the money changing hands.

 

[30ashopper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801765.html

This isn't about some cirtical governmental system that was privatised, but it is without a doubt a fun read and one of my favorite 'success stories'.

 

[scooterbug44]

I don't think that is a very good example of anything besides how spoiled and pampered our politicians are. Obviously privatizing a massive money losing clusterpuck that only existed as a major perk for politicians had to be an improvement over the status quo.

The fact that the Senate had to do multiple studies to figure out that they should do the same thing the House did decades earlier says volumes about our government and decision makers.

 

[30ashopper]

I don't think that is a very good example of anything besides how spoiled and pampered our politicians are. Obviously privatizing a massive money losing clusterpuck that only existed as a major perk for politicians had to be an improvement over the status quo.

The fact that the Senate had to do multiple studies to figure out that they should do the same thing the House did decades earlier says volumes about our government and decision makers.

The entire federal government is a massive money losing clusterpuck.

 

[futurebeachbum]

If you search around, there are plenty of case studies, a number of which are in other countries. Corruption of public officials is a central problem, but this has nothing to do with the act of privatising, it is a failure of government. Those same corrupt officials would be running the state run system if it were still intact. You just wouldn't know about the money changing hands.

The blatant level corruption in our elected officials grows worse and worse. The system has pretty much made them all for sale to highest bidders. At least in the old days there was some public outrage over corruption and elected officials lost their jobs.

It seems like ever since the "Keating 5" in 1989 we've had an attitude of acceptance towards both official and business corruption. Back then Glenn, McCain et al weren't impacted by their conniving for Keating. The only reason Alan Cranston took any heat was because he was already terminal with cancer and it didn't really matter to him. He was a convenient fall-guy. Now it feels like the only reason people like Maddoff, Lay or Ebbers were prosecuted was because they upset (or at least embarrassed) powerful people.

I wonder when we'll reach a 'critical mass' of corruption where the citizenry just won't stand for it any more.

 

[poppy]

Frontline aired an interesting story on for-profit colleges and how they are ripping off our veterans by taking their GI Bill benefits and delivering a very poor quality education with credits that can not be transferred.