Sven Pot

[Eddie Teach]

You expect me to read the article when it's about Sweden? Please.

[grumbler]

I'm not saying private welfare providers shouldn't have any profits, then there'd be no private welfare providers. But if the profits are large it's sensible to look at what they provide and how they achieve this profit.

And I can understand why people want to be assured that the welfare receivers aren't shafted because some contractors want a larger profit.

"Large" is meaningless here.  Certainly one wants to make sure that contractors don't steal money intended for recipients in order to pad profits, just like you don't want government workers to embezzle money intended for the recipients.

[The Brain]

You expect me to read the article when it's about Sweden? Please.

[Liep]

It's not clear to me why questions of quality and price couldn't be handled through normal purchasing processes.

Quality isn't always provided just because it is agreed upon in a contract. There's plenty of examples of contractors not taking workplace safety seriously or whatever because they want to maximize profits.

And when it comes to the care of the elders people tend to want more assurance that they're not just targets for more profits. So limiting what a contractor can take out of his business from profits can limit the incentive to cut corners.

Or at least I think that's the plan. If it's the best or if it will work I don't know.

[The Brain]

It's not clear to me why questions of quality and price couldn't be handled through normal purchasing processes.

Quality isn't always provided just because it is agreed upon in a contract. There's plenty of examples of contractors not taking workplace safety seriously or whatever because they want to maximize profits.

And when it comes to the care of the elders people tend to want more assurance that they're not just targets for more profits. So limiting what a contractor can take out of his business from profits can limit the incentive to cut corners.

Or at least I think that's the plan. If it's the best or if it will work I don't know.

No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.

[MadImmortalMan]

In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. 

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

In my experience, most of the stupid things contractors do are mandated in the contract. 

This.  Ironically, half the shit that makes government contracts in the US so inefficient and wasteful is all the shit thrown into the contracts to keep them from being inefficient and wasteful.

[Liep]

No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.

Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.

And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.

And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.

How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?

[derspiess]

I'd imagine some Democrats would be salivating over the thought of a similar but even wider-reaching law here in the US.  Frequently we hear rhetoric to the effect that corporations make too much money.

[Valmy]

Why should the government care about a few bankruptcies?  They can just go to different contractors right?

[The Brain]

No serious organization just assumes that suppliers deliver what is in the contract. You always check that they do.

Yes, and this is why we continually see examples of workplaces being fined for not living up to safety standards.

And no, I haven't heard of any examples of welfare receivers being neglected on a profit padding scale. But limiting incentive to have big surpluses might still make for better welfare, in Sweden's case perhaps stabilise the system to avoid more bankruptcies. Which was the point.

Basically, I don't see how welfare companies are fundamentally different from other companies. If I did I could conceivably see why they should be treated in a fundamentally different way than other companies.

[Valmy]

I'd imagine some Democrats would be salivating over the thought of a similar but even wider-reaching law here in the US.  Frequently we hear rhetoric to the effect that corporations make too much money.

When it stops being an actual thing and not something you are imaging we can discuss it

In any case the Democrats are plenty Wall Street friendly.

[Valmy]

How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?

Companies will be less greedy so will take fewer risks and not go bankrupt?  Not sure.

[Liep]

How will capping profits reduce bankruptcies?

As I read it it has become the target of speculators who think they can make big profits, but instead fail and then leaving the sector perhaps without anyone to immediately take over.