Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-06-2011, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Long Island
32,817 posts, read 19,351,537 times
Reputation: 9616

Advertisements

and why not privatize many of those things

my fire department is a VOLUNTEER fire department,,,,yet the cost of 1 chief per house and the banquest halls of firehouse it outragous


and why not privatize things like garbage....my garbage is picked up by a PRIVATE company..it costs LESS than the towns , and they come DIRECTLY to the side of the house to get the can..I dont have to bring it to the street..and they are NEAT about it, and dont DAMAGE the cans like government workers do
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-06-2011, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,364,478 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum View Post
Exactly. With what privatization we have seen already- what benefits have we seen?

Benefits...

a) public: none

b) privatized employees: detriment

c) corporate interests: profit at taxpayer expense

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 02:48 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,373,135 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Efficiency and cost of mission can be pretty much measured per the amount of functional independence from Government (and corruption) a contractor is allowed, or at what cost it can be maintained.
So, what's your point Can you cite any public benefit programs that can be better done by the government than by pivate companies? Excepting of course anything set up in the Constitution as mandated by the document such as the navy and the army. Clearly the government has proven repeatedly it can't compete with private enterprsie but rather is only supported by taxpayers when it has a monopoly, as it does on government schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 02:52 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,373,135 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Benefits...

a) public: none

b) privatized employees: detriment

c) corporate interests: profit at taxpayer expense

Examples?

The profits at taxpayer expenses are the crooked politicans who steal money from the taxpayers and route it toward their favorite bridges to nowhere or airports used by less than 1000 people per month.

Corporate interest like GE who pays no income tax and whose CEO is in bed with PBO? You mean like that? You mean like the drug and health care companies who bankroll elections so they can control their government puppets when it comes to price regulation? Corruption like this?

Oh please, cite some facts w/ links for proof, before you spew your vacuous bullya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:18 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Niagara Falls ON.
10,016 posts, read 12,518,788 times
Reputation: 9025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003 View Post
I seriously doubt there is any more or less political corruption in the US than Canada.

Either way, the solution is to eliminate the corruption. Not to expand government by having it run power companies.
I doubt that the corruption in Canadian politics is even 1% of that in the USA. It's not that Canadians are any more honest than anyone else. It's the system. The American is now and always has been very very easily corrupted. My goodness, "The spoils system" was the accepted way things were done for over half your history.

In Canada special interests either from the right, the left or the fringe can contribute any money whatsoever to politicians or political parties. When you take the money motive away then those who tend to be dishonest and corruptable look elsewhere than being public servants.

In my opinion the election of law enforcement officials, DA's and judges is just nuts!!! Politicians are crooked, period. They owe favours to the people who get them elected and when you make you justice system political it's the beginning of massive corruption from the top to the bottom.

I know it's difficult to get through your head the concept that the public can own Corporations and the government has very little to do with the running of those entities. What I find here in Canada it's just the opposite of what Americans claim about public corps. For example, the electric utility wants to raise rates let's say 5%. The government demands an outside audited statement showing why the rate increase is necessary. The government comes back with, We are not giving you a rate increase and we see economies that are available to you and we want a 5% decrease in rates. Governments have fallen because of poorly managed Crown Corps.

In Canadian hospitals the government wants $5 of service from the hospital while only spending $1. I really would not want to be the CEO of a health care unit here in Canada. You have to be able to squeeze water from stones to be successful.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
8,145 posts, read 6,502,873 times
Reputation: 1754
This why the right hate the public sector

Private sector lags public on hiring visible minorities: report | CivicAction

It always comes back to this for the tea party somehow.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,373,135 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by lucknow View Post

In Canadian hospitals the government wants $5 of service from the hospital while only spending $1. I really would not want to be the CEO of a health care unit here in Canada. You have to be able to squeeze water from stones to be successful.
Is this why Canada, Grt Britain, and Sweden are all now taking steps to privatize parts of their health care systems?

The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care by David Gratzer, City Journal Summer 2007



Quote:
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.
This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer.


From telecommunications to retail, deregulation and market competition have driven prices down and quality and productivity up. Health care is long overdue for the same prescription.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Texas
38,859 posts, read 25,364,478 times
Reputation: 24780
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
Examples?

The profits at taxpayer expenses are the crooked politicans who steal money from the taxpayers and route it toward their favorite bridges to nowhere or airports used by less than 1000 people per month.

Corporate interest like GE who pays no income tax and whose CEO is in bed with PBO? You mean like that? You mean like the drug and health care companies who bankroll elections so they can control their government puppets when it comes to price regulation? Corruption like this?
Nope.

Quote:
Oh please, cite some facts w/ links for proof, before you spew your vacuous bullya.

Here...

White Paper on Privatization

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 04:38 PM
 
1,230 posts, read 1,034,974 times
Reputation: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo View Post
Excellent White Paper. Thanks for posting it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2011, 09:53 PM
 
10,854 posts, read 9,265,188 times
Reputation: 3122
Quote:
Originally Posted by DifferentDrum View Post
"COMPEATED" for? When does that happen? Can we not learn from history and CURRENT events? For example, Walker can sell the utilities to Koch (or whoever he chooses) for a penny if he wants to. Cronyism is the rule here- as proven over and over again.

Win/win for who? Win/win how?
Keep in mind a key tenet of Conservative ideology is based on maintainingi and expanding the power of the wealthy and corporate interests. They could give a damn as far as what's best of people as a whole or providing opportunities or services for people on the lower rungs of society.

Therefore it's perfectly acceptable amongst Conservatives for Governor Walker to sell off state assets for pennies on the dollar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top