And conservative and bought politicians kept systems the same that were working well but don’t work well now under entirely different circumstances and to solve different problems.
That is part of the process. Under fund the public services and let private companies replace the easily replaceable (read commercially viable parts) and then point at the public ones and say:
They are inefficient compared to the private companies.
Their efficacy is dwindling and “reform” is needed.
This is at least the playbook they have followed in my country to ruin postal and railroad services, and they are in the process of ruining healthcare as well. To give concrete examples the public postal service needs to be able to deliver mail and packages anywhere in the country while the private ones can target the population centers only. Similarly privatized health care clinics can offer doctors of particular specializations higher pay and less work so that the public hospitals have shortage of such specialized doctors and need to “buy” treatments from the private wards for extortionate sums. The latter example is again used to say that the private are more efficient since it can make a surplus budget, ignoring the whole dynamic in play and that they are actually less efficient and abusing the public system for profit.
Yes, that is all true and I agree but even in the areas where they don’t have a particular financial interest in privatisation they tend to keep things the same, often because an existing industry buys the politician and the indstury is artificially propped up with subsidies and “too big to fail” style rescues or warnings about “job losses” if the industry isn’t saved. Alternatively the conservatives want to keep things the same because they invoke images of a past where “everything was better” that work well on the type of older people who can’t distinguish between the things that got worse because they got old and the things that got worse because anything in society is different now.
And conservative and bought politicians kept systems the same that were working well but don’t work well now under entirely different circumstances and to solve different problems.
That is part of the process. Under fund the public services and let private companies replace the easily replaceable (read commercially viable parts) and then point at the public ones and say:
This is at least the playbook they have followed in my country to ruin postal and railroad services, and they are in the process of ruining healthcare as well. To give concrete examples the public postal service needs to be able to deliver mail and packages anywhere in the country while the private ones can target the population centers only. Similarly privatized health care clinics can offer doctors of particular specializations higher pay and less work so that the public hospitals have shortage of such specialized doctors and need to “buy” treatments from the private wards for extortionate sums. The latter example is again used to say that the private are more efficient since it can make a surplus budget, ignoring the whole dynamic in play and that they are actually less efficient and abusing the public system for profit.
Yes, that is all true and I agree but even in the areas where they don’t have a particular financial interest in privatisation they tend to keep things the same, often because an existing industry buys the politician and the indstury is artificially propped up with subsidies and “too big to fail” style rescues or warnings about “job losses” if the industry isn’t saved. Alternatively the conservatives want to keep things the same because they invoke images of a past where “everything was better” that work well on the type of older people who can’t distinguish between the things that got worse because they got old and the things that got worse because anything in society is different now.