Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Show your support for what this community means to you:

Choose a Donation Amount
Username (required for credit)

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Take a look around and join the community. Have a topic? Join us and start a thread.

Railroads In the UK, Hospitals In the USA

AZDuckAZDuck Posts: 14,042
Swaye's Wigwam 10000 Comments 250 Answers Fucktard of the Week Award
The "free market" doesn't make everything better. Shocking, but when you put a public utility into the hands of a limited stock company (whose reason for being is to maximize profit for its shareholders) - the public tends to suffer:
Would public ownership achieve better results? As the right-leaning Daily Telegraph recently pointed out, when a troubled private rail franchise run by a company named Connex was taken into public ownership from 2003 to 2006, performance, punctuality and passenger satisfaction all improved. Similarly, after the East Coast network was renationalized in 2009, it became the most efficient rail franchise in Britain, needing less public subsidy than any other and returning hundreds of millions of pounds in revenues to the public purse. To complete the experiment, when it was again privatized in 2015, ticket prices on some journeys doubled and public satisfaction declined.

Similar things have been said about Medicare in the USA.
[L]et’s recognize that debates over administrative costs are usually proxies for debates over whether the public or private sector can deliver health insurance, or even health care, more efficiently. One thing that should be indisputable is that private administrative costs are higher.



Sign In or Register to comment.