Then do it where the storm had an effect, not Ohio.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PolliGaf 2012 |OT5| Big Bird, Binders, Bayonets, Bad News and Benghazi
- Thread starter RustyNails
- Start date
- Status
The Librarian
Banned
What about the costumers? If they're out to make a profit, that likely means it'll cost taxpayers more.
And what would this private company do between disasters? Just sit there?
You think the cost of hiring such a company plus the cost to oversee it would be less than what it currently costs plus allow room for a profit? It just isn't possible.
RustyNails
Member
Not yet, but the "storm relief event" will be anything but.
Because emergency response is the kind of thing that is the opposite of the sort of thing that generates a profit. Huge amounts of resources need to be poured into the response to this sort of event, millions upon millions of dollars. There is no way they could do it cheaper unless they skimped on saving people/property. Their main job would be making a profit, not saving lives. I don't care how heavily regulated it is, they will find a way around it. They always do, always.
He was being sarcastic.
What? Lol.
If they're doing the same quality job for less money then where is the profit coming from?
Obama doesn't have to say anything. Those in the media will question it and his surrogates can talk about it. Romney can't help himself though and he will campaign a little there. His stepping foot in Ohio tomorrow and not waiting until at least Wednesday or Thursday is campaigning. There is no other reason for him to be there but to campaign and to get some media coverage.
Efficiency, in theory.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
What consumers? The government is the only consumer.
What do our current government employees do between disasters?
Yeah.
Did he make an explicit promise to not campaign tomorrow? If he did it's kind of funny that he's doing this Ohio because the importance of the location is obvious, but I don't think this is actually a big deal. He's under no moral obligation to disappear from the earth however much we might like him to. Just as long as he doesn't do something like criticizing the government's response in a way that is unfair and undermines its effectiveness.
el retorno
Member
I was being sarcastic.
The problem with that is that it's already inefficient in theory. You have a strict set of rules and regulators bearing down on this private company, as he said. That means you have a group overseeing the private company. That's a whole new layer, rather than having one organization (the government) do both.
StopMakingSense
Member
You are actually making the reverse argument. The federal and state disaster response is a coalition of existing first responders and similar organizations. FEMA is just what glues it all together with protocols and staff to combine these effectively. In the event things are FUCKED, things like the states' Army reserve corps can be called upon.
You are arguing for what, a standing team/army of how many people employed by a private company? What do THEY do between disasters? How expensive is THAT? Where is the efficiency in that system? They aren't X-Men.
Nope. Hiding behind charity will protect him.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You guys sound so desperate lol. Romney is collecting cans for relief. Granted, the cans will not actually be used for relief apparently...but I seriously doubt
A) he'll be attacking the president
B) this will receive much coverage
A) he'll be attacking the president
B) this will receive much coverage
oh but he will
in a way that will contradict his past stance somehow
1 out of 2
not bad
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
How is having a regulator coming in and saying, "This is not what we meant by clean. Do we need to find someone else to do the job properly?" overbearing? The contract was signed with an expectation of quality. If you can't provide that then don't even enter a bid.
No way, bra. This will be simulcasted on all of the major networks like the Katrina relief program.
Of course? Why would I attack Romney for doing great volunteer work in a state badly affected by the hurricane?
Someone invite Nate to NeoGAF, something tells me he'd fit right in.
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
Will just leave this here
PD said:
Black Mamba
Member
I may be conflating it with joe Scarborough's comments. Still a Frequentist wouldn't say percentages on a one off event are meaningless.
I thing more problem lies in the notion that 75% to win means be will definitely win.
My argument was partially that you're adding more layers on top of things. You still need to create a bureaucracy and paper trail for that regulator. It's a whole separate layer. Instead of just going through one company/group it's going through 2 (the private company and then the regulating agency that makes sure the private company does what it says it will). On top of that you have the profit layer, which the private company will want to skim off. Realistically that's a lot of padding, which we could just allocate the entire chunk to what we actually want to get done, relief.
Also, you should read this post, which goes further into the problem here:
The government already has these people and systems in place all around the country. FEMA is what glues everything together. It does us no good to have another company trying to recreate what we already have. Even if you just try and say we should recreate that "glue" privately, you still have the profit layer added, but also you have a communication layer. Government agencies should theoretically be able to more efficiently communicate and collaborate more than a private agency would with a government agency.
RustyNails
Member
I think it's fair to say that when PD makes a prediction, usually the opposite happens.
The Librarian
Banned
Yup. People would pay less in taxes than they would pay a monthly fee to have a private company do it.
This is kind of like arguing for government-run health care vs. private insurance. Setting aside the fact that it would be immoral to profit off people getting hurt from disasters, how in the world would a private company manage to stay afloat between disasters? How would they cover the cost of maintaining an up-to-date, state-wide system on top of making a profit without it being too costly for the majority of people? How would they cover the cost of rescuing people who would otherwise not be able to afford disaster coverage on top of making a profit?
Actually, that's a pretty disgusting thought on its own. People not being able to afford disaster relief. What the hell.
It'd be one thing to go for a photo op in one of the states severely damaged by the hurricane (though the secret service logistics probably prevents this from happening), but to be SO transparent by doing it in a state that absolutely does not need it and a state that just so happens to be "the" swing state is awfully hilarious. I won't be upset if he gets torn apart for transparently milking a natural disaster after this.
Fine here in center city. Lots of wind and rain, but we have power.
Phoenix and I were probably the only ones who correctly predicted Romney stomping Obama in the first debate.
el retorno
Member
Jesus. People are chickening littling at this dem meeting I'm at. Its like Diablos in real life.
This is Romney, he's never not messed something like this up. London, Israel, Libya.
This is Romney, he's never not messed something like this up. London, Israel, Libya.
Scare people into voting.
Clevidamus, tell us more.
Well, I predicted the rest of the debates wrong, so there's that. I'm just saying sometimes we're right.
el retorno
Member
They're scared about Virginia and Senate races swinging.
I would be sure this is a joke post if it were not for you avatar. Ron Paul voters don't have good judgement.
He lost an avatar bet, I think.
Black Mamba
Member
It's up to the media to call out Romney if he's campaigning. Not holding my breath.
Yup, just you two and about 47% of US voters.
How would they make a profit?
By paying employees less.
What employees would take less money to do emergency response jobs?
Inferior employees.
Sounds like a real winner you got there.
FYI, I work in emergency response, of the hazmat variety. We cost WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYY more than comparable gov't. peers. That said, we get more done in the same time frame and are incredibly flexible, but we're crazy ass expensive.
We also fight for the bottom line of our client and our own bottom line before all else. Thanks to our superior pay we can generally get more qualified people working on a half dozen projects matched up with less qualified gov't. workers with four dozen projects under their supervision. Who do you think wins those battles?
Sure that you really want your firefighters, police officers, etc. working like that?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked