Parkland shooter investigated by private firm in Broward
Who wins when care of children subcontracted to profit seeking company
Every time they say let’s privatize some governmental duty or service they never bother to think through the profit motive. At this point it’s reactive. Just do away with government, all its stated and implied societal contracts and privatize it all. It has become the GOP mantra. The given base platform from which all others are built. Government is bad and inefficient and all of it can be replaced with a more creative, robust private sector.
But can it? Should it? I mean, anyone could make the argument that with Facebook, Google, Twitter and Apple services, corporations already wield way too much power generally in society and that if anything their roles need to be reduced, regulated and replaced by a robust government of the people. It seems this is a valid argument to make when a hostile foreign government is able to attempt to destroy America’s democracy by using these pervasive company’s products and the company not only is not alarmed but sees this as a revenue opportunity. Fuck democracy! Even fuck Americans. Let’s make some money! It’s essentially what Facebook and Twitter said. And still maintain to this day. So yeah, let’s have corporations with that mindset do EVERYTHING for us?
You can either have the service or you can have the profit. You can let the representative if the people serve them (and it can be done well. Ask Sweden, Germany, Norway, England, and Canada.) or you can abdicate the responsibility based on costs and give a private firm the opportunity to make money off of the public. People that advocate for privatization always pretend that there are never any disasters committed by private firms; that it’s always the land of milk and honey. All you have to do is look at the privatization of prisons to see what a clusterfuck it can turn out to be. If you allow a profit seeking corporation the opportunity to make money off of the public by servicing them in a way that their representative government is responsible for, you will invariably create perverse profit motives. Pay the company to take care of prisoners and they will seek to have more prisoners. To the point of advocating for judges that send more people to jail and for harsher sentencing. As you can see not ideal endpoint of the service for a society.
Give a company a governmental service and they will look for a way to get paid per unit of production. Then they will drive all out mercilessly as an entire entity to maximize unit production. Anyone who has been on the management side of a business recognizes this brutal business jungle behavior. It is simply what corporations do. It is what they are built for. Literally. That is why they were created. They are good at this. They are efficient. That is not a bad thing. Unless they are assigned the public good. because the public good will always come far second to money.
So the Parkland shooter was investigated, evaluated and monitored by a private company called Childnet. It is the company Broward county contracts its children services to. This corporation deemed the shooter non-threatening. Now, it’s a given that the process of spotting and properly intervening in a trouble child’s life is very difficult. That being said, should the people that are assigned this task be working on behalf children for the overall betterment of a society or community or should they be assigned the responsibility with the understanding that they are going to make as much money off of they children as possible? Seems obvious to me.
I have experience with Childnet. I am and have been a child caregiver of a relative’s children. Under the legal aegis of Childnet. What has become apparent to me is that corporations will be corporations. Childnet is about one thing and that is continuity of contractual money by clearing cases. However that has to happen that can’t make them legally negligent is all good. They have therapeutic services directors using the sessions as free training for his interns at his academic job while at the same time absolutely ensuring that anything his referral source (the judges in family court) wants, they get. I have seen the director himself testify to sessions that he was not even party too and change opinions on the progress of a case after talking to a judge in private. Because the judge wanted a case cleared and needed his opinion for cover to rule a certain way. In this case encouraging the access and placement of an eleven year old girl by and with a known, admitted drug abuser who just failed a test for cocaine, non-relative, violent felon. Because wants he the case ended. And Childnet knows where their bread is buttered. So the therapeutic director said that was in child best interest. Case closed. For money. Dollar, dollar bills, ya’ll.