I have been reading a book called "Profit is not the cure," which is a book about the advantages of public run health care. The author gives a plethora of examples of private sector companies who provide a lower quality of service at public expense. Examples include companies that provide less service for more money, require longer wait times, a higher administration fee, and of more cost to the tax-payer purse in the long run. One weakness in the argument is some of the examples the author uses to argue against right-wing think tanks.
Right wing think tanks argue for privatized health care because market competition is a driving force for efficiency. Nevertheless, the examples of inefficient companies the author provides are monopolies or oligopolies that have no need to compete in the open market because the market already belongs to them. The author has only proven that privatized health care does not serve its intended promise of efficacy if there is no competition.
The higher administration fees and accountability to investors does make the quality of health care service a concern. I cannot deny that running a hospital as a business would be cause to lower costs and increase profit margins, like any business. But what should be explored in further detail is the health care service of the private sector if there were many companies competing for patronage. Would competition inspire creative entrepreneurship and lower costs so that the companies would be able to earn a profit and provide great service? Or would the private companies' service pale in comparison to public services as the book suggests?
