Comments for Canadian Study a Lesson for Teabaggers: "Three in Four Suffer From Cuts to Public Spending" »
Posted By Radiofreeeuropa 7 months ago in Political NewsWhen governments contract out to private enterprise to provide necessary services, they almost invariably do so under a system that is more crony phony capitalism than healthy competitive free enterprise. Can you say 'cost-plus, no-bid?' It is far better for the public that the money be spent within a government department where it can be more carefully controlled, and where there is recourse for diversion, mis-spending and waste. The whole 'privatization is more efficient' argument falls apart under any close examination.
Certainly the argument against paying taxes for government corruption is a valid one, but just as certainly the remedy is to attack the corruption, not the taxation. Ironically the same type of people who want to spare their buddies the burden of paying their fair share tend to be the type who want to pay off those same buddies through graft. A kind of self-fulfilling prophecy which if you think of it is hardly surprising considering that they want the government to fail.
Or at least they claim to; really what they want is a government under their control - maximizing and guaranteeing their personal profits, socializing their losses, and calling out the guard should the hoi-polloi ever get fed up with the arrangement. (In a word, fascism.)
There is no better investment that a government can make than providing the public with free quality education. A better-educated citizen will earn much more during his lifetime, eventually paying back all the taxes gone into his schooling with interest. Which a wise government will then re-invest on educating his kids.
Maybe it's high time that the wise taxpayer learned that simple lesson. It would certainly be preferred to being conned into participating in some phony protest against your own interests.
ADDENDUM: Just as one example of the COST of LOWER taxes, here's a study of what it cost Americans to NOT have universal health care. (From the National Coalition on Health Care.) Just one fact from this piece forms a conclusive argument. The US spends 17% of GDP on health care and 40% of people are either not covered or not sufficiently covered. Canada covers EVERYBODY for 9.7% of GDP.
"This used to be a hell of a good country. I can't understand what's gone wrong with it."
--George, Easy Rider
Read Full Story at existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 68
-
86%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Privatization was a disaster when Gov.Whitman did it in N.J. in the 90s. Virtually every "privatized" program was simply looted by Whitman's cronys and dumped back in the states hands in later administrations. For instance the division of motor vehicles... when handed over to private concerns to run did lower pay for the workers but had to be profitable for the new "owners" offsetting any savings from cutting workers pay. They eventually conceded they couldn't run it and the state took it back. The very idea that is somehow falsely adhered to by many Americans that sticking a layer of owners-managers-speculators who siphon funds out of an enterprise somehow will lower the cost has no merit whatsoever. Allowing an agency that issued driver's licenses, tags, etc. to be handed over to a for profit private company was insane at best. Criminal at worst.
Reply
And it certainly did not benefit taxpayers.-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
100%
fsev417 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And the privatization of services to our military (Haliburton) and State Department security(Blakwater), how have they worked out. It seems we got fraud, outright theft, murder and rape all at the same time Cheney's buddies were getting rich. And that was under the "fiscally conservative Republicans".
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And Obama is different?
Reply
You really like to bury your head in the sand, don't you?
Obama's Blackwater?
Federal records obtained by AlterNet reveal a multi-million dollar contract for a private U.S. paramilitary force operating out of Jerusalem.
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama's advisers said he "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using mercenary forces, like Blackwater. Now, it appears that the Obama administration has decided on its hired guns of choice: Triple Canopy, a Chicago company now based in Virginia. It may not have Blackwater's thuggish reputation, but Triple Canopy has its own bloody history in Iraq and a record of hiring mercenaries from countries with atrocious human rights records. What's more, Obama is not just using the company in Iraq, but also as a U.S.-government funded private security force in Israel/Palestine, operating out of Jerusalem.
Beginning May 7th, Triple Canopy will officially take over Xe/Blackwater's mega- contract with the U.S. State Department for guarding occupation officials in Iraq. It's sure to be a lucrative deal: Obama's Iraq plan will inevitably rely on an increased use of private contractors, including an army of mercenaries to protect his surge of diplomats operating out of the monstrous U.S. embassy in Baghdad.
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_5538...-
Neutral
nostalgia6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Blackwater got a new $22.2 million deal from the State Department
Reply
Days after the Baghdad government decided it no longer wanted the company then known as Blackwater in Iraq, the State Department signed a $22.2 million deal in February to keep the embattled contractor working there through most of the summer, contract records show.
The decision keeps Blackwater - since renamed Xe - in Iraq months longer than anyone has suggested publicly, while raising questions about why the U.S. would pay a contractor for work in Iraq if it may not be able to operate there legally.
The State Department has been under pressure from Blackwater critics, including several in Congress, not to renew the company’s contracts in Iraq. Much of the concern stems from a 2007 incident that left 14 Iraqi civilians dead and six former Blackwater guards facing manslaughter charges. One of the guards pleaded guilty, but the company was accused of no wrongdoing in the incident.
In late January, the Iraqi government said it would not renew Blackwater’s operating license and that the company would have to leave as soon as a joint Iraqi-U.S. committee completes its work on guidelines for the operation of private security companies. State Department officials said they would honor the decision.
On Feb. 2, a department spokesman was asked whether officials planned to renew one of Blackwater’s contracts past May. The spokesman, Robert Wood, said the department had told Blackwater “we did not plan to renew the company’s existing task force orders for protective security details in Iraq.”
But records available through a federal procurement database show that on that same day, the State Department approved a $22.2 million contract modification for Blackwater “security personnel” in Iraq, with a job completion date of Sept. 3, 2009.
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2009/03/18/blackwat...-
-
Neutral
fsev416 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your sources seem to confirm that these contracts worked out poorly. The second cite speaks of a contract renewed Feb 2 which was just two weeks after Obama took office. He hadn't had time to get a full cabinet in place let alone revising major procurement policies. No where in my comment did I say that such contracts were no longer in place.
Reply
My point was that privatization frequently does not work well, as the original article claims also. I suspect that you will be seeing less privatization and fewer no bid contracts over the next four years.
My eyes are wide open.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
75%
gamahuche7 months ago
-
all2funComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
88%
engineer7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If privatization worked so well, and the system we have works so well, we wouldn't be the bottom in health care, education, etc. It doesn't work. Yes, we do have some things which are better but we have gone downhill. Denmark, for example, has the happiest people with a lot more socialization with less privatization. Other countries have better stuff , We could get there again, but we cannot if greed is the only thing that counts
Reply-
-
75%
chuck-the-canuck7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Much better to spend your tax dollars treating your citizens like family rather than spending them killing innocent people of colour on the other side of the world.
Reply
There is a whole segment of the American population that has been voting against its own best interests for decades. Rather than continuing to let greed be your guiding principle, why not give altruism a try.-
50%
Endoscopy7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So chuck. Are you one of the 5 million Canadians that do not have a doctor? If you have one do you have the average wait of 4 months to see one? Or are you lucky enough to live where it is a shorter wait.
Reply
What is your tax rate? How close to bankruptcy is your health care system? Britain's is bankrupt at present. More self medication for them. Are you doing that as well? Is it cost effective and safe like in Britain meaning the older you get the less cost effective it gets. If that is the case how well treated are the older people? Is it just suck it up and live with it for them?-
-
75%
greenmac7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endo...Yes there is a doctor shortage and some do not have a family doctor. Now that being said there are clinics staffed by doctors across the country. I have a family doctor but sometimes us the clinic....i9f I make an appointment in the morning I get looked after the same day. Elective surgery may result in a longer wait time than normal...but if you are sick you are taken care of right away..yes there may be some delay in the waiting room at times...not a problem in most cases. You talk about bankruptcy, that is the good point of being a Canadian... I do not have to worry about losing my home and being put into debt because of illness. I also do not have to pay into it except through my taxes. Given the choice of your system and my system, I will take the Canadian system.
Reply
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned5 Replies
-
-
50%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A majority of Canada's Supreme Court struck down a Quebec law that banned private health insurance and held that the public system inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on many of its patients
Reply
The Fraser Institute has found it takes an average of 17.9 weeks between the time a patient makes an appointment to see a general practitioner and when he can then see a specialist. He will then be treated by a system that ranks 13th out of 22 advanced countries in access to MRI technology; 17th out of 21 in access to CT scanners and seventh out of 22 in access to radiation machines. The safety valve in the system is that nearby U.S. hospitals can provide treatment for emergency cases and patients willing to pay.
Sounds like a great system Chuck!-
-
0%
nostalgia6 months, 4 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Try Google and take your choice of sources - one you find reputable
Reply
"Canada Supreme Court Quebec health care cruel unusual"
"Fraser Institute has found it takes an average of 17.9 weeks"
The Supreme Court ruling is in a variety of news sources - both the US and Canada
You can read the entire report at the Fraser Institute website as well as news reports
If you find anything which disputes what I posted, let me know
-
-
-
-
prophyporcritesComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned6 Replies
-
capecoralMComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
50%
nostalgia7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"we wouldn't be the bottom in health care, education, etc"
Reply
The Federal govt is the largest insurer in the country
The public schools are a govt monopoly
Want to pick some other examples because you are making the argument for the people who support privatization
-
-
-
-
hefaa1Comment removed: Hard Banned
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
all2funComment removed: Hard Banned
-
78%
cowboygrandpa7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Conservatives love to say tax cuts benefit people ??? Well under Reagan and the Bushes you've gotten tax cuts galore for the wealthy. We are far worse off now than when they took office.
Reply
The poverty of the poor have increased while the wealth of the wealthy have risen dramatically. Yeah keep cutting taxes pretty soon they will achieve what they have desired all along a free ride paid for by the misery of the working class.
What makes me laugh is the stupidity of the ones supporting the wealthy in this issue. They are like the idiots who get into the pyramid schemes thinking they will become rich, not realizing that that those who started it are looking for suckers who are to blind to see the truth.
It is the same thing with tax cuts, in reverse. You see a little bit up front but lose a lot in the end because their is no infrastructure to support the growth needed to sustain the economy.-
67%
beavith17 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...The poverty of the poor have increased while the wealth of the wealthy have risen dramatically. Yeah keep cutting taxes pretty soon they will achieve what they have desired all along a free ride paid for by the misery of the working class...
Reply
is this just you blathering or do have some proof?
so the wealthy are all thieves? so much for that american dream, huh?
thank heavens i don't look to you for moral support.-
67%
cowboygrandpa7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
beavith1:
Reply
Well if you are so blind as to not see that the majority of the wealthy are penny pinching, back stabbing thieves.
Well keep those wealth colored glasses on !! Hahahhhhahaaaaa
Proof ????? Look at what they have done to the world and America !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wealth in and of itself is not bad. But the love of money over people is.
Who do the wealthy love ??? Or should I say what do the wealthy love ???
You know all the security the wealthy think they have in their money and possessions ???
It is gone when they die.-
67%
beavith17 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i'm sorry that you feel that way.
Reply
i consider my self wealthy in money, my kids, friends and donating my time for various causes.
i think your main problem with the 'wealthy' is jealousy. no one can help you with that. only you can. take comfort in the fact that jealousy of others drives a lot of the discussion about the wealthy. its true of any majority that is jealous of any minority.
i'm sorry for my success. wait. no i'm not.-
100%
cowboygrandpa7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
beavith1:
Reply
Jealous ???? Of what ??? I've been present when the wealthy have died a miserable death, alone with their money. Their loved ones having taken what they can get and leaving them, to the thing they worshipped, their money and power. They didn't get to take it with them.
I was a volunteer fireman in the mountains of So. Cal. We would get the call of the suicides, or attempted suicides. Saw the wealthy with their heads blown off from shotgun blasts, dead or dying of drug or alcohol overdoses, hanging...
I had more than one chance to be wealthy.
But the love of money is not in me. Those who love me and are with me. Well they accept me, not my wealth or my power.
I'm glad you are successful. I do not begrudge you or others the things you want.
My whole point is that, most of the wealthy feel entitled to their wealth. As if they are special. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
But one day they will see that.
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
38%
Endoscopy7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a bunch of horse pucky. This is liberal garbage. In Britain and Canada wait times to see a doctor are atrocious. 6 weeks in Britain and 4 months in Canada. The system is bankrupt in Britain and they are slowly having patients self medicate. Arthritis and heart disease at present. In Canada there are not enough Doctors so 5 million have no primary care physician. Those who can afford it come to the US. Like that MP that went to California for breast cancer.
Reply
In Britain there are diminishing numbers of elective surgery and shortly there will be none allowed. Rules of how long doctors can work in the EU are forcing less surgery on the country. Another cost savings they use is instead of the safe and effective that is used here they use the cost effective and safe method. The older a person gets the less cost effective a procedure is. Daschle wrote a book about health care for the country and Congress wants to use that as a template. He took Britain as his example. Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. So when you get old tough luck getting any treatment. The older you get the worse it will be.
So you liberals just want to see your parents and grandparents just waste away when there are treatments that would help them. That is very sad.
This country has gone many years without it and we have the best medical care in the world. The proof is that where do people travel to when they can afford it to get treatment. This idiocy that we are way down the list is biased due to the illegals etc. Our poor get free medical care if they want it.-
75%
Radiofreeeuropa7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I had to see a doctor in Britain the last time I was there, I waited far less time than at my doctor's office, paid nothing and received top notch care. You don't know what your talking about.
Reply
It's such a shame that so many Americans are duped by the insurance companies and pharmaceutical giants into believing that health care would suffer without their massive profiteering. It's a load. And you'll notice these folks against a national health plan have no experience with ones that work in most developed nations.
In the U.S. only 40% of the population has healthcare coverage, at a cost of nearly 15% of it's GNP. Canada on the other hand covers their entire country for 9% of it's GNP.
Where is this "privatized" efficiency these spouters are claiming?
If 60% of the country is uncovered, they likely are getting their health needs addressed by emergency rooms which is wasteful and far more costly than actually covering them.
All I see is the usual unsubstantiated rant in opposition to public trust as opposed to private profit. MD's didn't get into medicine to serve the insurance industry. And it's remarkable to hear Americans claim they can't possibly do something as well as other nations.
As for "democrat run cities losing money" well yes, but every city is losing money regardless of who is in charge...the majority of states are in dire financial straits as well regardless of who is in the Governor's chair. With hundreds of thousands of people becoming unemployed every month the entire nation and indeed the world is running on empty, this has no relation to political parties in the US, other than they have both contributed to allowing Commercial Banking entities and Wall street to become their masters which is what has caused this collapse. -
100%
NoWayMan7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In Britain and Canada wait times to see a doctor are atrocious. 6 weeks in Britain and 4 months in Canada."
Reply
that might be true in some extreme cases, just like it is here for people on waiting lists to get certain transplants, etc.
but on an every day level, you're just full of sh*t.
my wife is a dual citizen, born and raised in canada. and what you are trying to paint as an overall truth is nothing more than a goddam lie.
-
-
50%
ndguy7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/story.html?id=...
Reply
The Jepp's didn't seem to find care in Canada? Weren't they covered? -
-
-
100%
NoWayMan7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The US spends 17% of GDP on health care and 40% of people are either not covered or not sufficiently covered. Canada covers EVERYBODY for 9.7% of GDP."
Reply
anyone who can just ignore this fact and still think our way is the best way is seriously in denial.
loading ...
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.