-
I don't know what ACA's are. Google will only give me Obama's Affordable Care Act results.
My point still stands. Whether or not it's a good long term policy, getting private companies to provide aspects of public services is cheap stopgap to deliver services. It is not the same as dismantling a free at the point of delivery universal health system and trying to kill people.
I'd be interested in seeing the sources you're referencing for the claim that private health providers will only be accountable to shareholders - and properly understanding what you actually mean by that.
hugo7-
getting private companies to provide aspects of public services is cheap stopgap to deliver services.
Can you source that (cheap)? My understanding of the whole point of these contracts is that they are eye-wateringly expensive which is why they appeal to private companies.
I think the point about only being accountable to shareholders is exactly what it sounds like, its the only thing a private company is obliged to do, and is often done at the expense of customers (c.f., the railways, thames water etc etc etc)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41152516 (one thing about thames water)
-
getting private companies to provide aspects of public services is cheap stopgap to deliver services
Why does the US spend more per capita on health care than every other country, then? Surely they should be rolling in these savings. The US government actually spends more the Canadian government. The US government is effectively subsidizing a for-profit system at a cost higher than a nationalised system.
branwen
So, what about the plan to bring in ACA's, without a vote in parliament on it, which allows private companies like Virgincare, blue cross and spire be full all round care providers with no accountability to anyone except shareholders.
For all kinds of reasons those should be avoided and fought against.