Predict when Romney will take back his FEMA comments
In the next few hours, it’s going to get REAL bad in the mid-Atlantic. They’re talking about up to 10 inches of rain for Washington D.C, and 36 or more hours of gale-force winds. And New Jersey and New York City are going to get hit even worse.
The GOP hasn’t figured out a way to blame this on Obama — yet. And while neither are the Democrats blaming Romney, they have hauled out a choice little nugget on funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that “Severely Conservative Mitt” uttered during the GOP debates earlier this year:
The question is, how soon will Romney flip-flop on this and say he didn’t mean it? Or that he’s really for FEMA, and he wants to give them more funding than the president? Or that he doesn’t deserve these vicious attacks because he never meant what he said in that debate, anyway. He just did it to fool those dumb Tea Party Republicans into giving him the nomination?
Pick the time and the day, folks! And how he’ll fram it. And of course, add any other comments you would like to on this subject.
October 29, 2012 - 9:00 AM
Shocker alert. Casey politicizing the superstorm.
Who cares Dan, where is the article about Patrick Moran? If you won’t, I will.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/25/jim-moran-son-vote-fraud-video/1656981/
I think Romney the politician will do just fine. Here’s a pretty good Obamnesia episode:
“I happen to BE a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program”–Illinois state Senator Barack Obama, June 2003.
“I have NOT said that I was a single-payer supporter”–President Obama, August 2009.
Never.
By friday morning
Frank,
Obama the politician will do just fine as well. On the other hand, Romney cannot and will not answer a question directly. He wants to run this country like it is a business.
The thing about Obama is people want to take what he said about a certain political issue 10 years ago and hold him to it..? The man is not allowed to grow and use his logic and experience to change his views to what works for him and his people? So, what you are saying is that if you are going to state an opinion on something, you must keep that opinion the rest of your life? Or are you really expecting him to be able to remember what he said about an issue that he held a stance on 6 years prior?
Mr. Casey, and many other Obama supporters point out scenarios, and situations Romney has said recently (the video), and asking the public if their thoughts are in line with that. And if they are in line with that, what about when his mind changes about something when speaking to a different demographic. Just on taxes alone, Romney, has flip-flopped so many times it is apparent and clear to those of us who listen to his words and not his party affiliation, what his plans are, or what they are not.
Romney, does not have a plan, has not released a plan. Romney, will not take a stand on anything except gay marriage. The only thing that is clear about Romney is that he is a liar, and a bigot that will say anything to get someone’s vote. At some point we have to realize that facts are real. Most of the things Romney states are not facts, they are made up fairy tales to get your vote.
With this storm we will actually see the Predident do his job, albeit he’s really just campaigning and pondering for the cameras.
Mattyr, I’d for one like to see Robertson get out there and start praying the storm away.
#7 Damn good thing no other president has ever campaigned for a second term while in office, eh, mattyr? I’ve always been grateful that Bush just paid attention to the two wars he started and never left Washington to stump for votes, especially right before the election.
I think there’s just enough wiggle room in his answer that he’ll claim he never agreed that FEMA should be defunded or its duties turned back to the states. Timing? 10, 9, 8…
“On the other hand, Romney cannot and will not answer a question directly.”-Justin
“After being asked about possible denials of requests for aid, and whether it’s fair to tell Americans that what happened is under investigation and won’t be released until after the election, the president said, “the election has nothing to do with four brave Americans getting killed and us wanting to find out exactly what happened.”
Clark pressed again.
“Were they denied requests for help during the attack?” he asked.
“Well, we are finding out exactly what happened,” the president again said. “I can tell you, as I’ve said over the last couple of months since this happened, the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives…”
Notice, Obama won’t answer the question(s) at all. He’s tap dancing all over the place so he can keep his lies straight…
Romney believes in the “privatization” of FEMA. He will not back off this statement, because this is his actual feelings, not one driven by polls or his handlers.
Most republican governed states would bring in “private contractors” to provide disaster relief – why should anyone believe this wouldn’t lead to “profit taking” also known as “gouging”. Friends of republicans, campaign contributors, and republican “supporters” would get the contracts. If a state’s infrastructure is compromised, [CA and earthquakes, Midwestern tornados. Southern hurricanes...] would any other state feel obligated to spend their own money to “help” the disaster riddled state? Wouldn’t poorer states [MS, LA...] become overwhelmed by the lack of personnel or monetary resources? Would one state charge another to send help? What happens if a governor “borrowed” from the “rainy day fund/disaster relief fund” and ‘lo and behold disaster strikes and there is no money to pay for relief? Would 47% of the population not deserve aid? Would the state provide a “voucher” system for necessities like water?
The Constitution in Article 1. Section 8 states: “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”…that is why the Federal Government should never relinquish their role in FEMA and leave disaster relief to the whim of republicans like Romney.
hey justin t…
you’ve used up more than your “fair share” of the Kool-aid batch today…time to pass it on to dud.
#6..Justin..get your head out of the sand…obviously you didn`t watch Romneys speech in Ohio yesterday where he laid out his 5-point plan…Oh, and another little item of interest spoken by none other than your Messiah, obama…and I quote…“The fact that we are here today to debate raising Americas debt is a sign of leadership FAILURE. It is a sign that the US government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoiung financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our countries fiscal policies. Increasing Americas debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that `the buck stops here.` Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the futures of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans desreve better.“ tHIS WAS SAID BY BARACK H. OBAMA….March 2006
Romney’s campaign spokesperson is now “claifying” his comments about FEMA
Romney Would Give More Power to States, Would Not Abolish FEMA – 10/29/12 10:52 AM EDT
““Gov. Romney believes that states should be in charge of emergency management in responding to storms and other natural disasters in their jurisdictions,” Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said in a statement. “As the first responders, states are in the best position to aid affected individuals and communities, and to direct resources and assistance to where they are needed most. This includes help from the federal government and FEMA.”
Romney’s previous [flip flopping?] statement on privatizing FEMA:
“[...] every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/83001.html#ixzz2AiVgqjMN
[Gov]McDonnell said he will apply today for expedited emergency assistance from the federal government.
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/315970
Okay, so the Federal Government is evil unless the governor needs something? Now I get it..
Shrillary: the Federal government is only useful when it pays for an unexpected bill. Kinda like when a college kid only calls home to Mom and Dad when the car transmission’s busted.
Hey Bobby McDonnell…you didn’t build that, babe.
The Constitution in Article 1. Section 8 states: “provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”…that is why the Federal Government should never relinquish their role in FEMA and leave disaster relief to the whim of republicans like Romney.
Comment by Shrillary — October 29, 2012 @ 12:28 pm
Sillary,
You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently. IMO, what Romney suggests is a good idea. Allow private firms to provide the
aid and assistance. The government may foot the bill but the result will
be less expensive than a Federal Agency handling the same. Besides private companies can be held accountable while government agencies are not; particularly under this administration.
“Sillary,
You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently. IMO, what Romney suggests is a good idea. Allow private firms to provide the aid and assistance. The government may foot the bill but the result will be less expensive than a Federal Agency handling the same. Besides private companies can be held accountable while government agencies are not; particularly under this administration.”
–Comment by Leon
Leon,
Shrillary quote the constitution to you and you come back with THIS tripe? Why don’t you simply quote the constitution back? — the part that requires the government to operate efficiently.
Come on. We’re waiting.
“You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently.”
The VA. Thanks for playing!
#19: “You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently’
comment by Leon
NOAA and The Coast Guard, that’s two for starters.
Re: Comment by Leon — October 29, 2012 @ 8:34 pm
You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently.
—————-
Don’t hear too much complaint about the IRS being too slow or inefficient in performing their primary function of collecting money.
At the State level, how about the SP issuing tickets?
.
.
Re: The government may foot the bill but the result will
be less expensive than a Federal Agency handling the same.
——————
You might want to look at the studied of “privatized” prisons.
Don’t hear too much complaint about the IRS being too slow or inefficient in performing their primary function of collecting money.
At the State level, how about the SP issuing tickets?
Comment by Dave Hicks — October 29, 2012 @ 9:08 pm
The IRS released (paid-out) over $5 Billion in fraudulent refunds last year. Any idea what all that bureauacy costs…here’s a hint…the primary cashflow of the Federal Government is payroll taxes…collected by private employers…for the States (most of them) it’s sales tax…again collected by private business.
Don’t know about state police but when you add up the down time for court appearance plus cost of the court…gets expensive IMO.
You might want to look at the studied of “privatized” prisons.
Comment by Dave Hicks — October 29, 2012 @ 9:15 pm
Don’t think Joe Arpaio’s system has a match…but he is truly exceptional and not the rule.
When donkeys fly , unicorns roam the earth and Sarah palin says something intelligent.
NOAA and The Coast Guard, that’s two for starters.
Comment by Warren — October 29, 2012 @ 9:04 pm
Effective and efficient are not the same thing.
Leon,
Shrillary quote the constitution to you and you come back with THIS tripe? Why don’t you simply quote the constitution back? — the part that requires the government to operate efficiently.
Come on. We’re waiting.
Comment by Dan Casey — October 29, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
Sillary’s quote. . .what does FEMA have to do with defence or general welfare. FEMA is emergency management. . .therefore, doesn’t make the grade as an enumerated power. . .therefore, it should be under the purview
of the states or general public. Romney is right.
Go buy you a Burka!
Re: my last:
Typo
Should have been, “You might want to look at the studies of “privatized” prisons.”
BTW, I should have added “particularly for violent and high risk inmates.”
21.“You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently.”
The VA. Thanks for playing!
Comment by Art Hill — October 29, 2012 @ 8:57 pm
LOL. . .inefficient and poor service. Vets deserve better.
27.When donkeys fly , unicorns roam the earth and Sarah palin says something intelligent.
Comment by dave — October 29, 2012 @ 9:32 pm
Think after this post we can add “Sarah Palin or Dave. . .”
“Vets deserve better.”
Tell that to your buddies in the House.
#28 Not exactly proof that they’re not efficient, there, Leon. Go ahead and provide some proof.
“#28 Not exactly proof that they’re not efficient, there, Leon. Go ahead and provide some proof.”
And while you’re at it, Leon, please: cite for us the part of the U.S. Constitution that requires the government to operate efficiently.
28.(You cannot name one government agency which operates efficiently) Comment by Leon
NOAA and The Coast Guard, that’s two for starters.
Comment by Warren
Effective and efficient are not the same thing.
Comment by Leon
We know they’re not the same thing, of course. Those two agencies are generally both, and they have missions that always demand effectiveness even in the face of occasional unavoidable inefficiencies.
It seems Leon and his other anti-government radicals would elevate efficiency above effectiveness as a core value.
“Why don’t you simply quote the constitution back? — the part that requires the government to operate efficiently.”
So Dan, are you arguing that because it is not Constitutionally mandated, the government should NOT run efficiently?
Romney will flip on his FEMA remark the day he submits his tax returns.
Which, if Obama does win, I think the first item on the agenda should be an IRS detachment, no, make that legions of agents to pour over his tax returns. Power does have its perks. Obama let the war criminal walk, he should not let the draft dodger and tax cheat off so easy.
In response to Dan@35 I hereby second Chuck@37. Thanks Chuck. Dan? ? ?
Leon, you need to find a school yard to play in…why we even bother, I have no idea…
This is a fine example of what a RWers “intelligent: argument looks like: Factless, childish name calling, and just plain stupid remarks. They’ve got nothing…
Comment by Leon — October 29, 2012 @ 9:37 pm
“Sillary’s quote. . .what does FEMA have to do with defence or general welfare. FEMA is emergency management. . .therefore, doesn’t make the grade as an enumerated power. . .therefore, it should be under the purview of the states or general public. Romney is right.Go buy you a Burka!”
hey cold, at post # 38, did you just get up on the wrong side of the bed yesterday, or, are you always filled with such hate?
What is the mission of FEMA – with whom do they partner?
Mission
FEMA’s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from and mitigate all hazards.
FEMA is not the team, but part of a team. That team includes FEDERAL PARTNERS, STATE, TRIBAL AND LOCAL OFFICIALS, PRIVATE SECTOR, NON-PROFITS AND FAITH BASED GROUPS AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC. [my caps for the dimwitted, ex Leon]
http://www.fema.gov/about
How would VA, for example be able to pay for the search and rescue, clean up and all that goes with major disasters? Who would pay for all the different types of private contractors necessary to do this? Do you think they would work for free? When the cost is distributed across 300 million Americans versus 8 million Virginians, it seems to me the financial impact is lessened on the individual states’ population, no?
hey dano at #35,
I think the general answer to your comment concerning “efficient” government lies with “common sense”, along with the desires of the electorate….many of whom are tax-payers. I suspect that the tax-payer part of the electorate desire to see a more efficient government, and the non-tax-payer part might not care so much with efficiency. There are certainly exceptions to that of course.
An inefficient government is wasteful, by definition. I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t like to waste things.
hey art at post #21,
You might be right, I haven’t looked at any comparative data. however, based on experience involving a family friend, I would like to provide some context to your premise.
A family friend, now 85 years of age, moved back to the Roanoke Valley 12 years ago from Ohio. He was a VA patient in Ohio, and is now served by the Salem VA. While in Ohio, one of his knees became problematic, and the VA chose to treat it by medication and “draining” the fluid periodically….saying he wasn’t a candidate for a knee replacement. He eventually visited a non-VA physician in Columbus, Oh., who told him that he was a prime candidate for a knee replacement. When told of this, his VA doc insisted he wasn’t a candidate for knee replacement at the “VA”, and what he got was meds and periodic drainings.
When he moved back home and went to the Salem VA, he was told the same thing. And, he gets the same treatment….now on both knees.
I’m not an orthopod, and I don’t know about conflicting medical protocols…, but something about my friend’s VA experience just doesn’t appear “efficient”.
Leon, your indictment of federal agencies as inherently inefficient is shallow, at best. Inefficient compared to private business? Do you think it is efficient that the CEO of a corporation posting an annual loss should receive a muti-milliion dollar bonus? Is it efficient for business travelers to use first class and charge that back to their employers? Do you really believe that private companies undertaking disaster relief would put efficiency and service to individuals ahead of profits? Federal government agencies are certainly not immune from inefficiencies, but to suggest that private business, on balance, runs more efficiently across the board is patently false.
Frank, efficiency can be a slippery slope. Many folks think of effciency as saving money where possible. In your friend’s case, it may be within appropriate medical protocols to treat his knees with medication and draining. Such a course would certainly seem to be more efficient from a short-term cost perspective …
“I’m not an orthopod, and I don’t know about conflicting medical protocols…, but something about my friend’s VA experience just doesn’t appear “efficient”.”
So you don’t see why a medical procedure that maintains an elderly man’s health and quality of life is “efficient”? I’m going out on a limb here and suggesting that VA care attempts to make the best overall decisions about this 85 year old dudes health. If you consider that knee replacement surgery has a host of risks, not the least of which is the surgery itself, it’s pretty easy to argue that it is the best treatment, efficiency be damned. It might also be the most efficient, but I’m not sure the issues of efficient and proper are even interchangeable.
I too have an elderly uncle getting VA benefits. He couldn’t be any happier with it. They fixed his heart and took care of slow growing cancer on his kidney. Said he thinks he got great medical treatment. His other quote: ” I never expected to live this long anyway.” He’s happy to have a nice quality of life for the three years of Navy service in the early 1950′s.
Frank, if your friend wants the replacements he should go to Ohio and get them. It’s a free world. Unless, of course, he doesn’t want to pay for them. And we can’t help that.
FWIW, I’ve worked for many years as a government contractor (ironically, I’m involved in disaster relief projects). For the past ten years or so the government has been shedding internal IT positions (largely because of cost, I suppose) and hiring private contractors. While this has cut down on gov’t retirement expenses, they’re paying an arm and a leg for outside workers.
I think this is what Romney wants more of when he talks about privatization–the government paying extra to hire private companies to do the work!
Frank, if your friend has Medicare, he should go see an orthopedic Dr. for an opinion on knee replacement. If he is in great health otherwise, he may be a candidate for knee replacement and Medicare should cover it. If his health is not great, at age 85, the treatment he is receiving from the VA is probably the best treatment for him.
Why didn’t he have the surgery done years ago, when he lived in Ohio?
Hey Frank, why haven’t you answered my question?
hey mike scott, my friend was in his early 70′s…maybe 72, when he began treatment for his knee.
My friend had options, but not with the VA…, and my comment was in response to Art Hill at #21, who so happily pranced about with his “the VA system is efficient” comment. There is a misconception among many that the VA provides the same options for health care services as private medicine, which is false, and which was the point I was trying to make.
Oh, and Mike, My buddie is generally happy with the VA as well. My comment wasn’t intended to run down the VA…it was just to noet that the VA, if it IS efficient, also has significant service limitations.
“Oh, and Mike, My buddie is generally happy with the VA as well. My comment wasn’t intended to run down the VA…it was just to noet that the VA, if it IS efficient, also has significant service limitations.”
Frank, could it be that one of the VA’s efficiencies is that it doesn’t engage in surgery that’s unnecessary, when it can be treated by nonsurgical means?
“…when it can be treated by nonsurgical means?”
Yep, just take a pill instead. You’re too old for us to spend any significant time or money on you…
So Frank has a “buddie” who couldn’t get free knee-replacements from the VA so that makes them inefficient? Try harder, guy.
DAN: “. . .when it can be treated by nonsurgical means?”
MATT: “Yep, just take a pill instead. You’re too old for us to spend any significant time or money on you…”
I would appreciate it if a medical professional would weigh in here, because I am certainly not one and matt isn’t either. He has a master’s from Hollins, and while that is a very admirable thing, and while a graduate degree from Hollins carries a measure of esteem and prestige, their master’s degree program is a limited one in dance, play-writing and whatnot. It’s all in the arts.
So, neither matt and I know what we’re talking about in medicine.
45.Leon, your indictment of federal agencies as inherently inefficient is shallow, at best. Inefficient compared to private business? Do you think it is efficient that the CEO of a corporation posting an annual loss should receive a muti-milliion dollar bonus? Is it efficient for business travelers to use first class and charge that back to their employers? Do you really believe that private companies undertaking disaster relief would put efficiency and service to individuals ahead of profits? Federal government agencies are certainly not immune from inefficiencies, but to suggest that private business, on balance, runs more efficiently across the board is patently false.
Comment by Nosaj — October 30, 2012 @ 10:39 am
Let’s take just one specific example: the U.S. Post Office versus either
Federal Express or United Parcel Service. Do I need to say more or are you willing to concede ignorance about who pays bonuses despite continuuing massive losses (and missed retiree benefit payments) or about
who you would rather ship with when it really does need to get where it’s going efficiently?
Sillary@40,
So sorry my comment went right over your head. Since you were quoting the
constitution I assumed you knew something about it. . .my bad. . .your dumb.
Emergency management is not general welfare. FEMA is not efficient or even geared to provide aid and assistance. Emergency response is the proper purview of state and local government or private agencies like the Red Cross. Romney is right. Hope you understand now. If not, reread the above.
“So, neither matt and I know what we’re talking about in medicine.”
I won’t argue with that statement one bit, Dan.
And somehow I knew Hollins would find a way into your reply. That’s a well that never runs dry, eh big guy?
@ Leon #59
“So sorry my comment went right over your head. Since you were quoting the
constitution I assumed you knew something about it. . .my bad. . .your [sic]dumb”
While I am not taking sides on the substance of this debate, I would recommend demonstrating basic grammar skills when questioning the intelligence of someone else. ‘Your’ indicates possession. ‘You’re’ is a contraction of ‘you are’. A properly constructed sentence might read: Your poor grammar might be a sign that you’re dumb.
matt, I admire Hollins. You’re the one who’s running it down, not me. I have never done that.
Fyi, I have had a drink or three with Mike, who is an intelligent and genuinely nice guy.
IMHO he’s a moderate who leans slightly to the right in my estimation, but he’s not close to being a TPer, which means that of course, in their estimation he is a Stalinist.
That’s the problem with the RW today. If you’re not with them, you’re a fire-breathing advocate of Lenin, Stalin, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il. It’s pretty bizarre. Even their formerly semi-reasonable pundits, like Chuck Krauthammer, have fallen into that sand trap.
Full disclosure: “Mike” and I have a “drink” wager on the outcome of the election in Va., and he took Romney.
For some reason no one has addressed the prison issue, other than an off the cuff comment about Joe Arpaio’s “system.”
Wonder why? Even look at the studies?
BTW, let’s wait on the Joe Arpaio’s “system” until after all the long-term litigation cost are factored in and the efficiency is studied in terms of recidivism.
IMHO, the main way that private companies to make money off running a prison is to pinch pennies everywhere – scrimp on security, save on food, hire less qualified guards, etc.
And the result? Failed penology.
“… the private sector has set dissimilar goals that include keeping their prisons at full capacity for monetary gain, lessening services, and running a cost-efficient facility. By cutting costs, the programs offered by the private prison are abbreviated through lowering managerial qualities. Hence, the for profit prison relinquishes rehabilitative guidelines on the pretense of saving the taxpayers money.” — David P. Disabato, Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois
“The objectives of incarceration, rehabilitation, and supervised confinement are programs installed which offer safe security measures for the inmate and the corrections personnel, as well. In a privately managed prison, there is a danger that prisoners … will suffer abuse and exploitation for profit. There are concerns about the development of a ‘criminal justice industrial complex’ becoming a political force that would affect incarceration rates, length of term, and conditions of confinement based not upon societal interest but the profit motive.” –
Cavise, Leonard L. “Prisons for profit.” The Unesco Courier. Vol. 51, No. 6. June, 1998: 20-4.
Good article here: http://tinyurl.com/8c6txf7
**
Private prisons not saving us money – so why do we still have them?
by Mark B. Evans on Aug. 17, 2012
SNIP
So how much money are we saving by having private companies run state and federal prisons?
None. In fact, recent investigations by the Arizona Republic, the Associated Press and prison watchdog groups, the American Friends Service Committee and The Sentencing Project, have shown private prisons are actually costing taxpayers more money than if the government ran the prisons.
And the government knows it. According to the Associated Press’s report earlier this month about federal incarceration of illegal immigrants, federal agencies, namely Homeland Security, have admitted private prisons cost more to operate and no longer use cost savings as the primary factor in awarding prison contracts.
SNIP
[emphasis added]
**
———-
http://tinyurl.com/97u8gw7
For-Profit Prisons: A Barrier to Serious Criminal Justice Reform
Published: Wednesday, 12 Oct 2011 | 2:26 PM ET
By: David Shapiro
Private prison companies openly admit that their profits depend on locking up more people. For example, in a 2010 annual report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the largest private prison company stated: “The demand for our facilities and services could be adversely affected by … leniency in conviction or parole standards and sentencing practices …”
As incarceration rates skyrocket, the private prison industry expands at exponential rates. The number of inmates in private prisons increased by roughly 1600 percent between 1990 and 2009. In 2010, the two largest private prison companies alone took in nearly $3 billion in revenue, and their top executives each received annual compensation packages worth well over $3 million.
While the for-profit prison industry touts the idea that governments can save money through privatization, private prisons often fail to deliver demonstrable fiscal benefits — and can even cost taxpayers more than publicly operated institutions. Numerous studies by researchers, state governments and federal agencies contradict the supposed economic benefits touted by industry supporters.
As state governments across the nation confront deep fiscal deficits, the notion that private prisons demonstrably reduce the costs of incarceration is more than untrue — it is dangerous and irresponsible. Inflated assertions about cost savings threaten to lure states into privatization, rather than reducing incarceration rates and limiting corrections spending through serious criminal justice reform.
SNIP
**
———-
http://tinyurl.com/8zxbxx8
**
Nation’s First Privately Owned State Prison Riddled With Violations Of State Law
By Aviva Shen on Oct 9, 2012 at 10:30 am
An Ohio prison owned by Corrections Corporation of America, one of the largest private prison companies in the US, has failed to meet state standards in food quality, sanitation, hygiene, and many other areas, according to a recently concluded audit. In total, the CCA prison had 47 violations.
SNIP
**
http://tinyurl.com/8d9jwry
**
Your Tax $ Wasted On Private Prisons Locking-Up Undocumented Immigrants
[video]
The U.S. is locking up more undocumented immigrants than ever, generating lucrative profits for the nation’s largest prison companies, and an Associated Press review shows the businesses have spent tens of millions of dollars lobbying lawmakers and contributing to campaigns. The cost to American taxpayers is on track to top $2 billion for this year, and the companies are expecting their biggest cut of that yet in the next few years thanks to government plans for new facilities to house the 400,000 immigrants detained annually…”.* The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks it down.
SNIP
**
———
http://www.justicestrategies.org/sites/default/files/publications/Privately%20Operated%20Federal%20Prisons%20for%20Immigrants%209-13-12%20FNL.pdf
**
Privately Operated Federal Prisons for Immigrants: Expensive. Unsafe. Unnecessary
SNIP
**
———-
BTW for a link to the election, see: http://tinyurl.com/9uc27ef
**
August 24, 2012 09:00 AM
Mitt Romney’s Undisclosed Relationship With Private Prisons
By karoli
Gawker released over 950 pages of documents relating to Bain Capital and Mitt Romney’s investments, mostly for the years 2008-2010. While I haven’t gone through even a fraction of them yet, one entity leaped out at me — Brookside Capital Partners Fund.
SNIP
Romney bought shares in September, 1998 and sold them sometime in the first two quarters of 1999. Depending on when they were sold (and especially if they were sold before May 14th), there’s a serious question about whether he had inside information and acted on it to the detriment of other investors, like the California and New York Public Employees’ Retirement Systems, for example.
Ultimately, the lawsuit was settled for $120 million, but as you can see from the numbers, Romney could have made off with $80 million in profit, leaving the plaintiffs to quibble over $120 million, less lawyers’ fees.
What we do know is that Romney invested in private prisons. We can also surmise that he profited from them, at states’ expense.
**
Dan, on #57, the best I could do is put the question to a highly qualified acquaintance, and pass along what they told me. Their surgical bonafides are the equal of anyone, and their experience includes both private and VA work, encompassing much of the period of expansion of elective surgeries.
That person says that a surgery as invasive as a knee replacement, which carries significant risks which can rise with age, is a procedure that shouldn’t be decided on casually, and requires evaluating the functional health of adjacent joints, and also requires a lengthy and expensive rehab that the public often underestimates. For that reason, for example, many obese people must lose weight before hip or knee replacement, and factors like cardiac health, clotting history and immune function are vital. If the patient is young enough to make the procedure likely to add significantly more functional benefit relative to other therapies, then the replacement joint will still need periodic evaluation, and the prognosis may indicate another replacement within a few years.
The time and costs of the post-op physical therapy, in particular, is something people who want to believe in a simplistic idea of joint replacement often underestimate. Then, too, everyone thinks their painful joint is worse than anyone else’s; but in a busy practice they’ve seen enough to know whose problem is extreme and whose is run of the mill. The latest joint prostheses are very good, and provide many people with fine results, but it’s an expensive procedure, and just not right for everyone.
In summary, numerous variables determine suitability for the procedure, and the costs of a knee replacement-the evaluative testing, the surgery, the hospitalization, the anesthesia and pharmacology, the PT rehab, the followups-is more than many people realize, and non-surgical therapies often provide significant functional and palliative results.
VA doctors may not receive the same financial incentives from device manufacturers that private sector surgeons have either, which is a good thing for the patient.
Too many Americans expect magic solutions from medicine, and magic accounting for the costs. Such people make reform of the healthcare system harder than necessary.
Frank’s original anecdote was uninformed enough to be meaningless, and matt’s response #55 was glib nonsense.
“Your poor grammar might be a sign that you’re dumb.”
Reminds me of this.
Nosaj, good to see you back!
Leon, most assuredly, UPS and Fedex run very effeciient operations and probably do outperform the USPS. Of course, UPS and Fedex do not have to deliver everyday mail the waynthe USPS must. I am not ignorant of the presence of efficiencies in the private sector. I am caling you on thr broad brush with which you paint the federal government. Ineffeciency and effeciency readily exist in the public and private sectors, and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwisw.
Odd; wasn’t too long ago (door)matt used to brag about his master’s degree but I guess that’s all behind us now…
Oh how the mighty have fallen! Still waiting on him to tell us how this budding captain of industry is changing the world with his masters in children’s lit but I guess I shouldn’t hold my breath. If nothing else I’m confident this jack ass learned how to squat to pee from his class mates.
Dave Hicks,
Perhaps Mitt Romney will be known as the private prisons president.
#58 OK, let’s take those examples. Show us where FedX or UPS is required to deliver to every door in the country, has to work on Saturdays, or is forced to set aside years of retiree medical benefits.
Odd; Alcoholic Steven has been relegated to simply cutting and pasting the same slobber from thread to thread. Tsk Tsk. I told you all that booze was gonna make you lazy, Steven.
“An inefficient government is wasteful, by definition. I don’t know about you, but I sure don’t like to waste things.”
Paul Ryan sure didn’t want to waste $300 million on embassy security.