Privatized Disaster at Walter Reed

by Wisco | March 4, 2007 at 10:19 am
1440 views | 0 Recommendations | 8 comments

Photos

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman

Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman

see larger image

uploaded by Wisco

I've never understood the logic behind privatization. You look at two organizations -- one that has to turn a profit and one that doesn't -- and argue that the for-profit enterprise can not only do things cheaper, but more efficiently. This despite the fact that one obviously requires more money changing hands. If the Bush administration has proven one thing, it's that this idea isn't just counterintuitive, it's baloney. We have, to a large extent, privatized rebuilding Iraq and we all know how well that's going -- we flew pallets of cash into the country, literally 363 tons of hundred dollar bills -- only to watch it evaporate. One of the biggest contractors in Iraq, Bechtel, did as lousy a job in that country as it did in Boston's 'Big Dig'. Privatization doesn't mean increased efficiency, it means cut corners, corruption, and turning the government into an ATM for corporations.

Take a look at an institution that's been private since the gitgo -- healthcare. A recent CBS News/NYT poll shows that americans not only think Universal Health coverage is a good idea, but that they're extremely unhappy with the system the genius of the free market has built. Apparently, a system built by private industry sucks in the extreme.

So it shouldn't surprise us any that the problems experienced by patients at Walter Reed Army Medical may be the result of privatization.


Raw Story:

The Bush Administration's drive for privatization may be responsible for the "deplorable" outpatient care for soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, according to a top Democratic Congressman investigating the scandal, which has already led to the resignation of the Secretary of the US Army.

A five-year, $120 million contract awarded to a firm run by a former executive from Halliburton – a multi-national corporation where Vice President Dick Cheney once served as CEO – will be probed at a Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs hearing scheduled for Monday.



The company is IAP Worldwide Services, which has a history of suckage. IAP failed to deliver ice to survivors of hurricane Katrina. According to Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Chair Henry Waxman, IAP "is led by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official who testified before our Committee in July 2004 in defense of Halliburton's exorbitant charges for fuel delivery and troop support in Iraq." According to ABC News, IAP was given a contract at Walter Reed despite the fact that the military had determined that federal employees could do the job better and cheaper.


In 2004, the Army determined that Walter Reed's federal employees could operate the medical center more efficiently than IAP Worldwide Services, which is operated by the former Halliburton executive, Al Neffgen, [says Henry Waxman]. After IAP protested, the Army "unilaterally" increased the employees' estimated costs by $7 million, making IAP appear cheaper, Waxman said. Rules barred Walter Reed employees from appealing the decision, Waxman wrote, and in January 2006 the Army gave the contract to IAP.



So, IAP -- which had to generate profits -- was given a job that the federal government -- which doesn't -- could've done. The lesson here is that privatization doesn't improve services, it makes them worse. A company who's entire motivation is profit will do the absolute minimum, in order to increase those profits. This isn't 'efficiency,' this is doing as little as possible to get a fat check.

The Pentagon, rather than admit that this whole privatization thing is a washout, is trying to block testimony by the former chief of Walter Reed, Maj. Gen. George Weightman. As a result, Henry Waxman has issued his subcommittee's first subpoena to compel testimony.

Like I say, the logic (such as it is) behind privatization doesn't add up. It seems to be based more on faith and ideology than on reasoning and history. Where government gives up services to private industry, scandal, corruption, and substandard service provision follows. Bush and his fellow free market moonies have proven that privatization is a disaster and there's no reason to continue their experiment.

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
0
scottcrumpler

The article being quoted in this blog uses a "top Democratic Congressman" as its source for the claim that privatization is to blame.  The problem is that while this is certainly a demonstration of corruption if it turns out to be true, it does very little to critique the concept of privatization itself.  And a year before the presidential election, what possible motive could the top Democratic Congressman have for seeking to blame a free market concept used by the incumbent Republican???

Corruption is everywhere-- not just the private sector.  And it should be dealt with harshly.  The state of care at Walter Reed, however, is the result of negligence by the hospital chief-- a US Army General and a Doctor who's conduct in that capacity is irrefutably unnacceptable.  There is no set of circumstances under which this particular government employee can dodge that.

In the private sector, if you don't deliver, you don't get paid, which is what drives the quality of service and production.  If General Weightman understood that and took his post seriously, he could have prevented conditions at Walter Reed from ever devolving to the state they're currently in, by seeing to it that his contractor understood that as well.

0
Wisco

This is obviously untrue:

In the private sector, if you don't deliver, you don't get paid, which is what drives the quality of service and production.

I showed that rebuilding in Iraq is a hugely expensive, but unproductive, project. People have played football with shrinkwrapped bundles of $100 bills, while accomplishing jack. And the company running Walter Reed was responsible for delivering ice to survivors of hurricane Katrina -- something they failed to do.

With this administration, if you have connections, you get paid -- regardless of whether or not you deliver.

0
scottcrumpler

Once again, this is corruption you're talking about, which is not exclusive to the open market.  Bush's buddies got all the juicy contracts, that's true, and they did a terrible job.  No argument there.  But this is not a very well-formed critique of privitization.

0
Wisco

You can't show me where privatization has improved service. If I call a public library to see if they had a book in, I'd get an answer pretty quick. If the library were privatized and I did the same thing, my call would be routed to a call center in India with a hold time of half an hour.

If you want government to work like technical support for Microsoft, then privatization is the way to go.

Besides, anyone who's worked for a corporation can tell you it's a bureaucracy. To say that a bureaucracy that has to make a profit will be cheaper than one that doesn't is just plain failing math.

0
angryindian

Thanks for this piece.

0
Wisco

The United States has by far the most
expensive health care system in the world,
based on health expenditures per capita (per person), and on total expenditures
as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP)...

it has been estimated that between 19.3 and 24.1 percent of the total dollars spent on health care in the U.S. is spent simply on administrative costs...

(Quality of Healthcare in the US -- WHO Study)

Despite having the most expensive health care system in the world, we rank 24th in life expectancy. In 2006, we had the 2nd worst infant mortality rate in the developed world. To return to the article, Walter Reed went to hell after it was privatized. All said, that's a pretty lousy return on the investment. 

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from