"Agree with Malusinka

""Profiteering"...boy, there's a word you don't hear much outside of the old Soviet Union. Apparently, private business and profit are not just wrong, but sinful, in the eyes of libwit neo-Puritans.

"One can support or oppose privatization in various contexts, but to try to turn it into a universal sin is seriously stupid. Then again, so are anti-capitalistic libwits.

"--Anonymous Tuesday, November 20, 2007 02:42 AM

What was it your "Randian/Libertarian" Ronnie Raygun said? Gov't is the problem? And he made no exception to that absolutist rule. So do the exceptions only apply to "free market" privatization"?

Learn history: many functions are gov't operated based upon lessons learned--from the greed, incompetence, and sociopathically self-serving failures of "privatization". We don't have private armies becaue they are a threat to freedom. We don't have entirely privatized health care bacause the majoirty can't afford access to such a monopoly.

Typical of the vacuous in-a-present-only-vacuum "Libertarian" ideology is the tireless, and tiresome, preachment that it is essential we be as ignorant as possible of history and reason so as to reinvent every wheel that need not be reinvented--so long as all that unnecessary and inefficient reinvention maximizes privatization of the taxpayer's monies to corporate welfare, the use of which is to gouge the taxpayer a second time for access. The taxpayer is gouged to build the football staidium--then must to pay a second time, for a ticket, to see the game.

this area is already privatized. That is not the issue.

The issue are whether the head of the company making those millions should be put in charge of the agency that determines, among other things, just how much that contractor gets paid for future exams. Maybe he'll decide, if confirmed, that his company should be paid $2500 per exam, or $25,000. Maybe his company will expand to other ares, and get contracts for other functions over competing companies.

A second issue, raised, but not really developed, is the suggesttion this guy could be a wedge for expanding privatization of the VA under another republican regime. The VA is the most socialized medical system operating in the country. It is far and away the most cost-efficient, way, way way ahead of the private system most of us "enjoy." It generally offers good service.

Privatization of this system = way higher costs, and another teat for corporate welfare.

From the main article - "A 2005 report from the VA's inspector general says the company charges around $590 for each exam, making the contracts worth at least $88 million this year alone."

Throwing those kinds of numbers around seems crazy to the normal person making $40k/year. I can't fathom that kind of money.

But there are a couple things I do understand.

1. I've worked with the government as a contractor. They are ridiculously inefficient.

2. If I'm picked up by ambulance, I won't even make it to a hospital for $590!

So how is it that privatizing this aspect of VA healthcare is bad? Are we not getting our monies worth? An ambulance ride with no doctor in sight costs $800-$1000. Or is it that we're worried about a company getting their foot in the door and maybe getting more contracts down the road?

I hate to break this to you, but that's the way business works. The neighbor kid comes over and rakes your leaves. He does a good job so you have him mow your lawn. He seems conscientious and careful so you give him a shot at trimming your hedges. Come winter-time he's shoveling the drive. This might burst a few bubbles, but that kid's trying to make money too.

Go out and start your own company and do it better. That's a great thing about this country. Another great thing is that if you don't like it, you're free to leave...

"I don't have a clue what you mean in your last 2 sentences."

He means that businesses want to push costs off to the government.

And he probably thinks that's 'normal' too, as in 'fine and dandy'.

The problem with privatizing any government is simple: while government belongs to all citizens, private business belongs to the owners. Privatized government is no better then despotic dictatorship.

Unless you believe in the benevolence of corporate leadership. Just ask them, they'll tell you how much they care about you.

"Since we live in a capitalist country, the integration of capital's leadership and staff into positions of government, and vice-versa, is entirely normal."

Corporations' basic motive is profit for shareholders, and government's is to serve citizens. Sometimes these overlap, sometimes they conflict. So, it's simplistic and one-sided to say that integration is entirely normal.

"The perception of conflict of interest is in the head of the writer."

No, the conflict of interest is entirely, 100% objective and real; a corporate head is being tapped to head the same agency that pays his business. That is real, a fact, not somebody's opinion.

"the irony here is that the Benjamin keeps repeating that Peake and QTC have been unusually honest (or at least non-corupt) in their government contracts!"

I agree, the write has been fair to Peake and QTC. Salty3 would disagree with you, he says this is just a smear job.

"The problem at the VA is not QTC, but the whole way vets are treated and taken care of. Mr. Benjamin doesn't have much to say about that."

If you search the archieves, you will see this writer has several good articles on vets.

"Certainly, no appointment can even speak to that matter without first confronting the profit-based nature of the economy. Relative to business profit, government spending on health care is overhead that reaps few benefits and thus tends to gravitate to politically minimum acceptable levels."

I don't have a clue what you mean in your last 2 sentences.

Since we live in a capitalist country, the integration of capital's leadership and staff into positions of government, and vice-versa, is entirely normal. The perception of conflict of interest is in the head of the writer. Of course, some get carried away in the mix and have to be called to order, but the irony here is that the Benjamin keeps repeating that Peake and QTC have been unusually honest (or at least non-corupt) in their government contracts!

The problem at the VA is not QTC, but the whole way vets are treated and taken care of. Mr. Benjamin doesn't have much to say about that. Certainly, no appointment can even speak to that matter without first confronting the profit-based nature of the economy. Relative to business profit, government spending on health care is overhead that reaps few benefits and thus tends to gravitate to politically minimum acceptable levels.