You're missing the point completely, it's not about depriving citizens of fundamental services.
- How do you know care home providers don't bribe their way through contracts?
- How do you know they are not an oligopoly that sets the price under the table, and the government pays 1.5 - 2x contributions for someone to be in a care facility versus what you would pay yourself for an elderly relative going to the exact same facility?
Specific counter examples are not fruitful, people who don't have the means don't understand the economics and don't understand money, that's why they are complaining about the inequality, and they can downvote me here all they want, I truly hope it relieves their frustration even slightly.
If you've ever worked with government directly, you're expected to understand it's one of the most rigged and corrupt institutions by very far. Yes, it exists to perform universally beneficial functions, does it really do that? Hello no, in most cases it spends 2 - 3x the money it really needs to for the same service. I'm not suggesting it should cut off the elderly, just cut the waste in providing those services.
Ironically, this attitude causes much of the problem. All that red tape isn’t just decorative. It’s a reaction to tons of concern (and concern-trolling) over government waste.
“How do you know that a contract is above-board?”, you ask. You know this because some committee put together an absurdly detailed Request for Proposals, complete with requirements, evaluation metrics, milestones and circles and arrows on the back of each one. Throw in some politically-imposed requirements (can only travel on US Airlines, lest we “waste” money on the British) too for good measure. The winner’s proposal gets turned into a Statement of Work that specifies what’s to be done, when, where, and how. The whole mess gets audited and inspected and archived so it can be reviewed later by more auditors, Congress, and concerned citizens like you.
Hiring is equally bonkers. Managers (mostly) can’t flip through the submitted resumes and pick out someone that seems clever and driven (“What if it’s their cousin?!?”) Instead, there are long questionnaires and fixed experience requirements. The manager can only pick from the top 3(?) candidates and the salary is barely negotiable.
It is a huge pain. It’s slow, it’s expensive, and it’s not always responsive. The complicated process is exclusionary (Raytheon has rooms of staff that know these rules chapter and verse; you don’t). Right now, it feels like the system spends $100 to be sure it saves $1. We would be better off if we relaxed these controls a bit and trusted individuals a bit more (backed up with audits, obviously, lest anyone get ideas), but....here we are.
I get your point that government is wasteful and corrupt in many ways. I'm not convinced that your proposed solution is coherent or workable.
I'm all for increased transparency but you seem to be additionally advocating a target-based, profit-driven approach. This sort of approach has to my knowledge failed pretty badly in the health, education and prison sectors in the UK. What happens is that as soon as you come up with a way to measure "return on investment" or "level of service", contractors will figure out a way to game those measures whilst providing poorer and poorer actual service.
- How do you know care home providers don't bribe their way through contracts? - How do you know they are not an oligopoly that sets the price under the table, and the government pays 1.5 - 2x contributions for someone to be in a care facility versus what you would pay yourself for an elderly relative going to the exact same facility?
Specific counter examples are not fruitful, people who don't have the means don't understand the economics and don't understand money, that's why they are complaining about the inequality, and they can downvote me here all they want, I truly hope it relieves their frustration even slightly.
If you've ever worked with government directly, you're expected to understand it's one of the most rigged and corrupt institutions by very far. Yes, it exists to perform universally beneficial functions, does it really do that? Hello no, in most cases it spends 2 - 3x the money it really needs to for the same service. I'm not suggesting it should cut off the elderly, just cut the waste in providing those services.