Sven Pot

[Jacob]

But apparently it can't be done for cheaper.  Government itself wasn't able to provide that service at that price (or if they could why would they ever have privatized it?).

Why would a right-wing government privatize a public service? Perhaps for ideological reasons?

[The Brain]

It's 600 billion crowns ($84 billion*.15=12.6), which is quite a lot in a country like Sweden. I don't really follow the rest you say, do you think that the state shouldn't use private sector suppliers?

I'm saying that when it does it seems prudent to demand that the money be used on welfare service rather than to aim for more profit.

It's not 15%, the whole SEK 600 billion sector is affected. It's not like profit will be fine for 5% of the sector if the private part (badadum) increases to 20%.

When the state buys roads, cars, food, etc do you think profit should be OK?

[grumbler]

Sure, and I'm sure they already do. But if a welfare provider lives up to that and still comes out with a profit, isn't it waste of taxpayer money to next year pay the same when it can be done cheaper?

  So, if a government contractor makes a profit, then the government should reduce the payment next year so the provider doesn't make a profit? How does that make sense?  What provider will work for free?

[Admiral Yi]

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Feel free to share a link, because your insight into the Swedish voter was not disclosed in the OP.

[Valmy]

But we can't know it can be done cheaper.  And there are reasons to believe it can't.

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Yet they set up this entire very successful system on Yi's assumption and nothing so far has shown otherwise.  In fact decades of Swedish experience with the welfare state demonstrates this as well.  So are we to assume that the Swedish government and voters are idiots?  It just doesn't make any sense to shake up and destabilize a system that has proven a success for petty ideological reasons.

[Valmy]

Sure, and I'm sure they already do. But if a welfare provider lives up to that and still comes out with a profit, isn't it waste of taxpayer money to next year pay the same when it can be done cheaper?

  So, if a government contractor makes a profit, then the government should reduce the payment next year so the provider doesn't make a profit? How does that make sense?  What provider will work for free?

Either that or force the contractor to pay out more in services.  Which would lead to all sorts of weirdness.

[The Brain]

But we can't know it can be done cheaper.  And there are reasons to believe it can't.

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

No it's an empirical position. For instance, Swedish school vouchers are typically 85% of government costs for a kid. If a private school can make a profit from 85% of what the government non-profit school gets, how do we know that it could be done cheaper? Rhetorical.

[CountDeMoney]

I didn't know Pol had a brother.


Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?

[Admiral Yi]

I didn't know Pol had a brother.


Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?

[The Brain]

I didn't know Pol had a brother.


Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?

I don't get it.

[Liep]

But we can't know it can be done cheaper.  And there are reasons to believe it can't.

That's a fairly ideological position, and the Swedish government and its voters takes a different ideological position.

Yet they set up this entire very successful system on Yi's assumption and nothing so far has shown otherwise.  In fact decades of Swedish experience with the welfare state demonstrates this as well.  So are we to assume that the Swedish government and voters are idiots?  It just doesn't make any sense to shake up and destabilize a system that has proven a success for petty ideological reasons.

Private welfare contractors are still pretty new.

[Liep]

Sure, and I'm sure they already do. But if a welfare provider lives up to that and still comes out with a profit, isn't it waste of taxpayer money to next year pay the same when it can be done cheaper?

  So, if a government contractor makes a profit, then the government should reduce the payment next year so the provider doesn't make a profit? How does that make sense?  What provider will work for free?

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.

[The Brain]

Sure, and I'm sure they already do. But if a welfare provider lives up to that and still comes out with a profit, isn't it waste of taxpayer money to next year pay the same when it can be done cheaper?

  So, if a government contractor makes a profit, then the government should reduce the payment next year so the provider doesn't make a profit? How does that make sense?  What provider will work for free?

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.

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

[Eddie Teach]

I didn't know Pol had a brother.


Really, people? We had to wait until page 2 for that gag?

It occurred to me, but I didn't want to face Yi's stoneface.

[Admiral Yi]

Guys, that was the fucking joke Brain was making.

There isn't really a person named Sven Pot.  Pot is not a common Swedish surname.