Originally Posted by Pup7

Yes. Several thousands of dollars in pay in benefits.

If the results of using A and B are the same, but B is cheaper, why on earth would you continue to pay more for the same thing?

I'm a military officer, a nurse, and a clinic manager, so I deal in personnel issues, manning documents, and contracts, as well as sick people - there are reasons the Feds hire contract physicians over simply recruiting another physician to go active duty and fill the slot: IT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS CHEAPER for exactly the same result.

Contract physicians come at a flat rate, which the DOD pays to the contracting agency. Active duty officers incur costs directly from the DOD's pocket: straight salary, housing allowance, food allowance (all officers get money each month in lieu of government provided chow halls), recruitment costs, bonuses (which MDs make to make their salaries competitive with the outside so we can recruit and keep the best of the best), moving costs (at last tally it costs approximately $50K to move an officer to his or her next assignment), HEALTH CARE COSTS, dependent costs.....believe me, I've seen the numbers, and it's always cheaper to contract. If an MD in one spot under a Federal contract costs the Feds $125K a year, that's far less than paying for everything that a Federal employee or military member accrues (Fed employees get health insurance, which of course the Feds subsidize, competitive salaries, benefits, etc - and they have to get promoted or stepped in a certain period of time, and as the old saying goes - they're damn near impossible to fire, so they could cost you even more in the long run because having them removed is difficult. They cost you either in legal costs or dead weight.)

It works the EXACT same way for any contract, whether it's to replace/circumvent a military member or a GS (General Schedule/what Federal workers are classified under) employee, or even an entire agency. It's always cheaper. Health care, life insurance, salaries, uniforms, you name it. It's cheaper to pay a company a flat rate and let them deal with the rest of it. It's always cheaper.

Why do you think there's so much privatization in the Fed these days?

Everyone here has said that many, many times over. If it's cheaper, and the result is the same - then yes, privatize it.