Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday April 13 2020, @10:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the abiding-by-the-contract dept.

Company prioritizes $15k ventilators over cheaper model specified in contract:

The Dutch company that received millions of taxpayer dollars to develop an affordable ventilator for pandemics but never delivered them has struck a much more lucrative deal with the federal government to make 43,000 ventilators at four times the price.

The US Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday that it plans to pay Royal Philips N.V. $646.7 million for the new ventilators—paying more than $15,000 each. The first 2,500 units are to arrive before the end of May, HHS said, and the rest by the end of December.

Philips refused to say which model of ventilator the government was buying. But in response to questions from ProPublica, HHS officials said the government is purchasing the Trilogy EV300, the more expensive version of the ventilator that was developed with federal funds.

The deal is a striking departure from the federal contract Philips' Respironics division signed in September to produce 10,000 ventilators for the Strategic National Stockpile at a cost of $3,280 each.

"This kind of profiteering—paying four times the negotiated price—is not only irresponsible to taxpayers but is particularly offensive when so many people are out of work," said Dr. Nicole Lurie, who served as the HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response during the Obama administration. "And besides, most of these ventilators will come too late to make a difference in this pandemic. We'll then 'replenish' the stockpile at a ridiculously high price."

"What else," she asked, "won't we be able to buy as a result?"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 13 2020, @02:50PM (4 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday April 13 2020, @02:50PM (#982001)

    Experience / wisdom is, unfortunately, not a quantity that can be objectively measured like age - all attempts to do so have been invariably biased and inaccurate, most likely because the words themselves: experience and wisdom, are inherently imprecise and vary in their interpretation.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday April 13 2020, @03:37PM (3 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Monday April 13 2020, @03:37PM (#982035)

    True, and they don't even necessarily increase with age. However, they're far less common among the young.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 13 2020, @05:06PM (2 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday April 13 2020, @05:06PM (#982079)

      However, they're far less common among the young.

      As measured by whom? (Am I even using whom correctly? Doubt I'll ever care enough to learn that with confidence no matter my age.)

      There are some objective measures of neurological phenomena which pretty much let teenagers out from being trusted to independently make important decisions for a larger group, but by the mid 20s most people have outgrown that. There are some sociological phenomena that put most people in their 20s and early 30s "in a box" where they don't get the bigger picture, but that's not tied to age so much as it is life experiences. There are other sociological phenomena that keep many people in similar boxes all their lives, unable to understand, or care, what happens outside their little corner of the world. There's also the "out to prove something" phenomenon that gets in the way of optimal decision making for a lot of people who are "on their way up."

      The true tragedy of judging wisdom and even experience in the ballot box is that the voters mostly have to do it based on television appearances, sound bites, meta-meta analysis from media channels with multiple agendas of their own, etc.

      Now, if the candidate can cloak themselves in a staff with deep knowledge, experience and wisdom and present that picture to the public, that's actually what we want and it doesn't matter if the candidate themselves is a wax figure with some animatronics installed. Gaining entre' into those circles usually takes time, so even very bright, capable, well traveled and educated individuals will take years to build up the connections that can make a good leader or legislator. I think the founding Fathers' age limit of at least 35 is reasonable, even good, though when I was 22 I was convinced I could do it by 28 (given a thousand things I had no chance of ever having access to...)

      What we've got now is a the BEST example of how not to do it, his cheering section is really astounding in their devotion.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @05:55PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2020, @05:55PM (#982107)

        You did use "whom" correctly. I don't know why it is so confusing. Even very high profile people have complained about it. People don't have any problem knowing whether to use "he/she" or "him/her", and it is the same thing here. If you're not sure which to use, switch it out and try either "he" or "him" to see what makes sense. For instance, "According to who/whom", you would try "According to he" and "According to him" and then it becomes obvious.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday April 13 2020, @08:38PM

          by Gaaark (41) on Monday April 13 2020, @08:38PM (#982212) Journal

          Damn...modded you Insightful instead of "Holy Feck, I learned something today!"

          Spanks!

          Now...can old age let me remember this?

          --
          --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---