Comments on: Prison Health Care-Does Anyone Really Think This’ll Work?

By: anone

anone — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:04:08 +0000

No one in their right mind would trade their medicare coverage for private insurance. That should answer the lizards question.

By: El Somnambulo

El Somnambulo — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:33:57 +0000

DOC’s been a mess from time immemorial. According to Wikipedia, granted not always the most reliable source, these were Danberg’s duties:

“He was responsible for community, legislative and media relations, managing victim services, budget preparation and drafting legislation as well as training and advising correction staff.”

He was never in charge. He did an excellent job as AG when M. Jane Brady decided that she wanted to be a judge.

Laying the mess of DOC at his feet is unfair.

He is now, however, on the clock when it comes to cleaning up the mess.

By: anon.

anon. — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:32:45 +0000

To be totally honest, from what I’m hearing I don’t think delawareans give a dam if murderers, rapists, or sex offenders have healthcare at all. It’s hard to have sympathy when alot of Delawareans are being laid off, or have no benefits themselves. If the R’s (Sir Copeland and CRI) think this will become a campaign issue, they are wrong.

By: mizundastood

mizundastood — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:57:30 +0000

Didn’t Danberg work for the DOC for 8 or 9 years before he took it over? From the mid 90’s until 2005, then he took it over in 2007. He’s been running it for almost 3 years now and its still a mess.

By: xstryker

xstryker — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:39:20 +0000

The Dems can’t deliver effective healthcare to a confined population, but you think they will do better when they are in charge of the whole healthcare system…

Private health insurance companies can’t deliver effective healthcare to anyone, and Medicare remains extremely popular. So yes, I think a move away from privatization will be more effective no matter who is in charge. That should be the solution Danberg pursues, rather than give out 10 more contracts to corporate buccaneers.

By: El Somnambulo

El Somnambulo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:37:17 +0000

In fairness to Carl Danberg, the logic likely goes something like this: There aren’t many companies nationwide equipped to do the Whole Enchilada of prison health care. If the company you contract with turns out to be an Epic Fail, as with CMS, you’re screwed. How can you simultaneously extricate yourself from a problem vendor at that level while continuing to provide services?

The corollary to that theory is that, at the less gargantuan level, there are many vendors equipped to provide a more narrow range of services. So, if one has to be swapped out due to performance issues, it is actually a manageable process.

I still don’t get how someone can be a successful cat-herder of so many contractors. And I still don’t see how this will work in practice. But, at least there appears to be some logic behind the move.

By: Brooke

Brooke — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:35:53 +0000

Well, liz, we could let Aunt Bea do it. But don’t let Deputy Fife run any errands.

By: lizard

lizard — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:20:57 +0000

The Dems can’t deliver effective healthcare to a confined population, but you think they will do better when they are in charge of the whole healthcare system…

absolute insanity

By: Mark H

Mark H — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:26:43 +0000

RFP at 11

By: liberalgeek

liberalgeek — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:12:21 +0000

They may actually have to hire a vendor to manage all of the vendors.

I wish I was joking.