This is scary - Disaster capitalism

Remove all ads!

Source

Thank God the NHS has not been privitazed. Having lived in the Republic of Ireland and the US, I am not a big fan of private healthcare.

[ August 30, 2006, 10:03: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

Maybe slightly off-topic, but: Why is it that some people insist on living on the side of a volcano or on top of a fault line in the earth, or hell, even in Tornado Alley? That´s what I´m wondering about...

 

what the hell are you talking about?

On topic, this sounds like the next step in corporations buying out the US.

 

The only problem with the NHS is that it know doesn't work because the money for ity is spent on managers, lawyers, business resource groups etc instead of Nurses, doctors and porters etc. It's a case of it doesn't matter what the patient has wrong as long as they do it inside budget and it wasn't our (the hospital's) fault.

But the above article is probably the way of things for most countries not just the US, while money has the importance it has, there will always be a case of one rule for those who have and nothing for those who haven't. There are examples of this seen round the world, and they are becoming more prevalent.

 

There is a vital flaw in the scenario as portrayed by the writer of the article...it assumes that government funding is the only source of revenue for these corporations that are geared up for disaster relief and rebuilding.

There is a significant source of "funding" that is and will be available, although it has yet to step into the picture...the insurance industry. I predict that insurance carriers will begin to "hire" these disaster relief corporations, and those best prepared and equipped to render aid and rebuilding will survive and profit independent of any government funding. It may even lead to more efficient use of insurance claim dollars to speed recovery to affected areas.

I'm all go for this...seems like a chance to have a profitable new business opportunity, as well as better serve the public. Privatize away!

 

I guess that the theory is that Corporations may be better suited to provide things that are really needed in such situations, and can do so more efficiantly than a volunteer organization. I'm not sure I agree with that. Corporations specialize in making money. Volunteers focus on the emergency at hand because the distraction of money is out of the way.

 

Exactly. Profit should not be a consideration when it comes to helping your fellow citizens.

 

So long as companies are willing to dig deep into their own coffers, or hand out their own pre-packaged goods with brand names smeared everywhere, then more power to them.

Such companies have armies of spin doctors, called PR agents, who will them gladly and loudly tell the nation and world how much better their parent company or client handled the crisis then the government.

Granted, companies are deserved their boosting for helping out when the government drags their heels. But who can say to what extent their boosting is true. If, say, Wal-Mart (the favorite whipping boy for most of America) spends $3 million on goods and cost of transport for crisis relief, they should NOT spend an additional $5 million letting everyone around the globe know that they spent $3 million! That's when PR runs amuck.

One thing that I thought about when reading about contracts is that companies are the perfect partner for the government because they already have the stuff the government will need why crunch time hits. Contracts should be short lived however. If companies are allowed to take out long term contracts for disaster relief, then that is little more than a return to monoplies.

Monoplies that are meant to save peoples' lives when things go terribly wrong